^>^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Library  of  Dr.  A.  A.  Hod^e.      Presented. 


BL  240  .A73  1886 
Armstrong,  George  D.  1813- 

1899.  I 

The  two  books  6f  nature  and 

revelation  collated 


Ci  <L 


7/ 


/<,c  if-C'Ci^- 


THE 


TWO    BOOKS 


OF 


Nature  and  Reyelation 


COLLATED. 


KY 


GEOEGE    D.   ARMSTEONG,  D.D., 

Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  Norfolk,  Va.,  and  former  hj  Professor 

of  Chemistry  and  Geology  i>i  Washington  and  Lee  University^ 

Lexington,  Va. 


FUNK    &    WAG  N  ALLS. 

NEW  YORK:  1886.  LONDON: 

10  AND  12  Dey  Street.  44  Fleet  Street. 

All  Bights  lieserved. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1886,  by 

FUNK  Jb  WAGNALLS, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


PREFACE. 


It  is  sometimes  said  that  scientific  questions  can  be  in- 
telligently decided  by  scientists  alone  ;  and  for  this  rea- 
son people  of  ordinary  intelligence  and  education  must 
take  tbese  decisions  on  trust.  This  is  true  respecting  cer- 
tain questions  ;  but,  a^  the  same  time,  it  is  true  that  the 
great  body  of  our  modern  science,  the  science  involved 
in  the  decision  of 'such  questions  as  those  discussed  in  the 
present  volume,  can  be  brought  fully  within  the  reach 
of  the  understanding  of  any  well-informed  man  of  aver- 
age intelligence,  if  an  honest  effort  is  made  to  do  it. 
Such  a  man  might  not  be  able  to  construct  the  argument 
for  himself,  but  when  it  is  fairly  presented  he  can  judge 
and  reach  his  conclusions  for  himself  as  safely  as  the 
scientist  can. 

Edward  Clodd,  F.R.A.S.,  must  have  believed  this 
in  so  far  as  the  questions  concerning  primeval  man  are 
concerned,  for  he  wrote  his  "  Childliood  of  the  World" 
for  the  use  of  youth  in  a  course  of  education.  Professor 
Huxley  must  have  believed  this  in  so  far  as  evolution 
is  concerned,  for  most  of  his  "  Lay  Sermons  and  Ad- 
dresses" and  his  New  York  ''Lectures  on  Evolution" 
were  originally  addressed  to  popular  audiences.  Pro- 
fessor Robertson  Smith  and  Dr.  Toy  must  have  believed 
this  in  so  far  as  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the 
Pentateuch  are  concerned,  for  the  first-named  addressed 
his  "Lectures  on  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 
Church"  to  a  popular  audience,  and  Dr.  Toy  wrote  his 


IV  PREFACE. 

''  History  of  the  Eeligion  of  Israel  "  for  the  use  of  the 
advanced  classes  in  Sabbath-schools. 

In  the  present  volume  the  author  has  sought  :  (1) 
To  popularize  the  discussion  of  the  matters  treated  of, 
avoiding  as  far  as  possible  the  use  of  technical  terms, 
or,  where  such  terms  were,  for  any  reason,  used,  add- 
ing immediately  an  explanation  thereof  ;  and  (2)  to 
bring  the  discussion  within  the  limits  of  a  single  volume 
of  moderate  size,  by  taking  no  notice  of  irrelevant  mat- 
ters and  matters  of  little  importance,  and  confining  his 
attention  to  the  strong  points  alone — the  points  upon 
which  a  correct  decision  of  the  questions  at  issue  must 
turn.  How  far  he  has  succeeded  in  this  he  must  leave 
the  reader  to  judge. 


CONTENTS. 


L— NATURE  AND  REVELATION. 

PAGE 

§  1.  The  Border-land.  §  2.  Science  as  yet  Incomplete. 
§  3.  Premature  Announcements.  §  4.  The  Language  of 
Scripture.    §5.  The  Author's  Object  in  Writing 7 

IL— PRIMEVAL  MAN. 

§  6.  The  Question  Stated.  §  7.  Advance  and  Degrada- 
tion alike  Common.  §8.  True  Significance  of  the  *' Ages." 
§  9.  The  Testimony  of  Geology.  §  10.  The  Testimony  of 
Anthropology.  §  11.  The  Testimony  of  Archaeology. 
§  13.  Conclusion  from  the  Testimony  of  Science.  §  13. 
The  Cradle  of  the  Human  Race.  §  14.  The  Antiquity  of 
the  Nations  of  Western  Asia.  §  15.  The  Antiquity  of 
Egypt.  §  16.  Tradition  Respecting  the  Confusion  of 
Tongues.  §  17.  Tradition  Respecting  the  Flood.  §  18.  Tradi- 
tion  Respecting  the  Golden  Age.  §  19.  Mauetho,  Berosus,  and 
Moses  Compared.  §  20.  Further  Proof  of  the  Credibility 
of  the  Pentateuch.  §  21.  Civilization  of  Primeval  Man, 
according  to  the  Pentateuch.  §  22.  Religion  of  Primeval 
Man,  according  to  the  Pentateuch.     §23.  Conclusions....     16 

III.— EVOLUTION. 

§  24.  Changes  in  Inorganic  Nature.  §  25.  Changes  which 
Constitute  Growth.  §  26.  Changes  which  Last  beyond  the 
Life  of  the  Individual.  §  27.  Evolution  as  held  by  Her- 
bert Spencer.  §  28.  Evolution  as  held  by  Charles  Darwin. 
§  29.  Evolution  in  its  Limited  Range.  §  80.  Argu- 
ments for  Evolution.  §  31.  Some  Objections  to  Evolution. 
§  32.  Two  Capital  Objections  to  Evolution.  §  33.  Conclu- 
sions. §  34.  Relation  of  Revelation  to  Evolution  as  Taught 
by  Huxley.  §  35.  Relation  of  Revelation  to  Evolution  as 
Taught  by  Darwin.  §  36.  Revelation  and  Evolution  as 
Taught  by  Dr.  Woodrow.  §  37.  Revelation  and  Evolution 
in  its  most  Limited  Ransre 52 


Tl  CONTEXTS. 

IV —THE  MOSAIC  COSMOGONY. 

§38.  A  Remarkable  Fact.  §39.  "In  the  Beginning,"  ac- 
cording to  Moses.  §  40.  "  In  the  Beginning,"  according  to 
Science.  §  41.  Emergence  from  Chaos,  according  to  Moses. 
§  42.  Emergence  from  Chaos,  according  to  Science.  §  43. 
The  Creation  of  Plants  and  Animals,  according  to  Moses. 
§  44.  The  Creation  of  Plants  and  Animals,  according  to  Sci- 
ence. §  45.  The  Creation  of  Man,  according  to  Moses. 
§  46.  The  Creation  of  Man,  according  to  Science.  §  47. 
The  Age  of  the  World.  §  48.  The  Popular  Method  of  Rec- 
onciliation. §  49.  A  Second  Method  of  Reconciliation. 
§  50.  The  Proper  Position  for  the  Christian  Apologist. 
§  51.  Huxley's  Objection  to  Creation  as  Supernatural. 
§  53.  Huxley's  Objection  to  Creation  as  subject  to  no  Law. 
§  53.  Huxley's  Objection  to  Creation  as  implying  an  Extrav- 
agant Expenditure  of  Divine  Power.  §  54.  Points  at  which 
the  Hypothesis  of  Evolution  Breaks  down.  §  55.  Con- 
clusion       98 

v.— THE  PENTATEUCH. 

§56.  The  "Higher  Criticism."  §57.  The  Question  Stated. 
§  58.  The  Pentateuch  Claims  Moses  as  its  Author,  and  to  be 
True  History.  §  59.  Quotations  of  the  Pentateuch  as  Au- 
thentic and  Credible.  §  60.  Prophets  and  Apostles  In- 
spired, Our  Lord  Divine.  §  61.  The  Literary  Style  of  the 
Pentateuch.  §  62.  Incidental  Confirmations.  §  63.  The 
Character  of  the  Communications.  §  64.  The  Divine  Ele- 
ment in  the  Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  Ignored  by  the 
"  Higher  Critics."  §  65.  The  Truth  of  Evolution  Assumed 
by  the  "  Higher  Critics."      §  66.  Conclusions 153 

VI.— PROVIDENCE  AND  PRAYER. 

§  67.  A  Statement  of  Professor  Huxley.  §  68.  Effect  of  Mod- 
ern Science  on  Man's  Conceptions  of  Nature.  §  69.  Hux- 
ley's Picture  of  our  Cosmos  Incomplete.  §  70.  The  True 
Conception  of  Nature.  §  71.  Providence.  §  72.  Professor 
Tyndall's  Prayer-Test.  §  73.  Tyndall's  Test  Practically 
Worthless.  §  74.  Tyndall's  Test  Impracticable.  §  75.  Tlie 
EiEcacy  of  Prayer  Tested  by  Observation.  §  76.  Prayer 
Instinctive 186 


THE  TWO  BOOKS  OF 

NATURE   AND   REVELATION   COLLATED. 


I. 

]^ATURE   AND    REVELATIOlSr. 

§  1.   '^  The  Border-land.'' 

"  The  border-land  between  science  and  religion  is  one 
which  men  cannot  be  prevented  from  entering  ;  but  what 
they  may  find  there  depends  very  much  on  themselves. 
Under  wise  guidance  it  may  prove  to  us  an  Eden,  the 
very  gate  of  heaven,  and  we  may  acquire  in  it  larger  and 
more  harmonious  views  of  both  the  seen  and  the  unseen, 
of  science  and  religion.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may 
be  found  to  be  a  battle-field  or  a  bedlam,  a  place  of  con- 
fused cries  and  incoherent  ravings,  and  strewn  with  the 
wrecks  of  human  hopes  and  aspirations."  (Dawson's 
'^  Facts  and  Fancies  of  Modern  Science,"  p.  1-^.) 

What  Principal  Dawson  here  remarks  as  true  of  science 
and  religion  is,  of  necessity,  true  of  science  and  the  rev- 
elation of  the  one  only  true  religion  contained  in  the 
Scriptures.  In  making  a  revelation  of  religious  truth  in 
such  a  form  as  to  be  easily  intelligible  to  man,  especially 
"•  the  common  people,"  the  Scriptures  very  wisely  pre- 
sent us  with,  not  a  "Confession  of  Faith,"  not  a 
treatise  on  "  Systematic  Theology,"  but  with  that  truth 


8  NATURE   AND    REVELATION". 

as  it  is  incorporated  in  tlie  history  of  tlie  Church  and  the 
life  and  experience  of  God's  people  in  the  world.  The 
Bible  contains  very  little  didactic  discussion  or  logical 
exhibition  of  the  truth  it  teaches,  but  is  largely  made  up 
of  history,  the  biographies  of  saints  and  sinners,  of 
psahns  and  proverbs  and  prophecies,  and  the  story  of 
the  hfe  and  teachings  of  the  God-man  during  His  brief 
sojourn  among  men.  Admitting,  then,  as  every  thought- 
ful reader  must,  that  there  is  no  intention  on  the  part  of 
the  sacred  \7riters  to  teach  us  science,  in  the  distinctive 
sense  of  that  term,  in  the  Scriptures,  it  will  be  seen  at 
once  that  the  Scriptures,  on  the  one  hand,  and  geog- 
raphy, history,  chronology,  and  science,  physical  and 
metaphysical,  on  the  other,  must  often  cover  the  same 
ground,  not  for  the  same  purpose,  it  is  true,  but  yet 
must  often  cover  the  same  ground  ;  that  there  is  a  bor- 
der-land in  which  the  students  of  Scripture  and  science 
must  meet,  and  will  have  occasion  to  examine  the  same 
subjects,  and  deal  with  the  same  facts.  As  Principal 
Dawson  remarks,  '^  Man  cannot  be  prevented  from  enter- 
ing this  border-land  ;"  nor  is  it  desirable,  in  the  interest 
either  of  religion  or  science,  that  he  should  be.  The 
Christian  believes  that  the  Bible  and  nature  are  both 
alike  from  God — a  God  of  truth  ;  and  from  this  it 
necessarily  follows  that  when  rightly  interpreted  they 
will  harmonize  and  illustrate  each  other.  Yet,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  divines 
and  scientists  have  often  been  in  conflict  ;  and  at  the 
present  day  the  most  persistent  attacks  upon  Christianity 
are  from  the  side  of  science,  thus  illustrating  the  truth 
of  the  remark  ^'  that  what  men  may  find  in  this  border- 
land depends  very  much  upon  themselves" — the  pur- 
pose with  which  they  enter  that  land,  and  the  spirit  in 
which  they  pursue  their  investigations. 


NATURE   AND   REVELATION-.  9 

^^At  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the  British  Association 
in  18(35,  some  six  hundred  and  seventeen  scientific  men 
signed  a  paper  containing  the  following  declaration — 
viz. :  '  We  conceive  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  Word 
of  God,  as  written  in  the  book  of  natnre,  and  God's 
w^ord,  w^ritten  in  Holy  Scripture,  to  contradict  one  an- 
other, however  much  they  may  appear  to  differ.  We 
are  not  forgetful  that  pliysical  science  is  not  complete, 
but  is  only  in  a  condition  of  progress,  and  that  at  present 
our  finite  reason  enables  us  to  see  as  through  a  glass 
darkly,  and  we  confidently  believe  that  a  time  will  come 
when  the  two  records  will  be  seen  to  agree  in  every  par- 
ticular.'"  (''Current  Discussions  in  Theology  for 
1883,"  pp.  7,  8.) 

§  2.   Science  as  yet  Incomplete. 

There  is  and  there  can  be  no  conflict  between  science 
and  revelation  ;  but  there  is  and  there  has  long  been 
conflict  between  scientists  and  divines  ;  and  a  fruitful 
source  of  this  conflict  is,  as  intimated  in  the  paper  of  the 
British  scientists,  quoted  above,  the  present  incomplete- 
ness of  science.  Taking  science  as  it  is  set  forth  in  the 
popular  waitings  of  the  day,  we  will  find  it  consisting  of 
two  distinct  and  separable  portions — viz. :  (1)  a  body  of 
well-ascertained  facts  and  principles,  which  make  up  the 
science  itself  ;  and  (2)  a  body  of  hypotheses  and  con- 
jectures, more  or  less  probable,  by  means  of  wdiich  men 
are  endeavoring  to  enlarge  the  domain  of  science.  It 
would  be  a  great  mistake  to  reject  the  use  of  all  hy- 
potheses simply  because  they  were  unproven.  The  his- 
tory of  science  furnishes  abundant  evidence  that  hy- 
potheses, even  such  as  have  afterward  turned  out  to  be 
incorrect,  have  been  of  great  use  in  directing  the  course 
of  investigation  and  experiment  on  the  part  of  those  who 


10  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

were  laboring  for  the  enlargement  of  human  knowledge. 
Like  the  scaffold  used  in  the  erection  of  a  building,  they 
have  been  of  great  service  while  the  building  is  going 
up,  though  removed  as  of  no  value  after  the  building  is 
completed.     But  we  should  never  forget  that  unproved 

I  hypotheses  are  not  an  integral  part  of  science  itself. 
Much  of  the  seeming  discrepancy  between  science  and 
'revelation  to-day  arises  out  of  a  disregard  of  this  dis- 
tinction, and  a  consequent  declaration  that  science  tes- 
tifies to  this,  and  science  testifies  to  that,  when,  in  fact, 

I  the  testimony  is  not  that  of  science,  but  that  of  some 
unproved  hypothesis.  Prof.  Huxley  never  wrote  a  truer 
thing  than  when  he  wrote  :  ^'  Men  of  science,  like  young 
colts  in  a  fresh  pasture,  are  apt  to  be  exhilarated  on 
being  turned  into  a  new  field  of  inquiry,  and  to  go  off  at 
a  hand  gallop,  in  total  disregard  of  hedges  and  ditches, 
losing  sight  of  the  real  limitation  of  their  inquiries,  and  to 
forget  the  extreme  imperfection  of  what  is  known." 
("  Origin  of  Species,"  Lecture  I.) 

§  3.  Premature  Announcernents. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  j)resent  century  a  great  excite- 
ment was  created  in  tlie  scientific  world  by  the  discovery 
of  ''  the  zodiacs  of  Dendera  and  Esne  in  Egypt."  The 
zodiac  painted  upon  the  ceiling  of  the  temple  at  Den- 
dera ' '  is  headed  by  the  sign  of  the  Lion,  followed  by  the 
Virgin,  the  Balance,  the  Scorpion,  the  Archer,  and  Cap- 
ricorn in  the  same  line.  The  peculiar  arrangement  of 
these  figures  represented,  it  was  said,  the  exact  position 
of  the  constellations  when  the  zodiac  was  constructed, 
and  it  was  ascertained  by  appropriate  calculations  that  it 
w*as  much  older  than  the  beginning  of  the  period  em- 
braced in  the  Christian  chronology."  Li  1821  the 
zodiac  of  Dendera,  having  been  carefully  detached  from 


NATURE   AND    REVELATION.  11 

the  ceiling  of  the  temple,  was  brought  safely  to  Paris. 
*  *  M.  Greppo  describes  the  interest  which  it  awakened  : 
an  object  of  interest  to  educated  men,  and  of  vanity  to 
those  who  thought  themselves  such,  it  could  not  remain 
unnoticed  by  the  multitude  ;  and  classes  of  society  who 
knew  not  even  the  significance  of  the  term  zodiac  rushed 
in  crowds  to  behold  it.  In  the  journals,  in  the  saloons, 
the  zodiac  was  the  only  topic  of  discussion.  Have  you 
seen  the  zodiac  ?  What  do  you  think  of  the  zodiac  ? 
were  questions  to  which  every  one  was  seemingly  com- 
pelled to  give  a  well-informed  answer,  or  to  be  degraded 
from  a  place  in  polished  society.  Tracts  were  circulated 
in  Paris  to  disseminate  the  fact  that  the  Christian  chro- 
nology was  set  aside."  (Southall's  "  Eecent  Origin  of 
Man,"  pp.  76,  77.)  Subsequent  and  more  thorough  in- 
vestigation, especially  that  of  the  younger  Champollion 
in  Egypt,  has  shown,  beyond  all  question,  that  this  an- 
nouncement was  premature,  that  ''these  zodiacs  be- 
longed to  the  first  and  second  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era,  and  were  '  schemes  of  nativity, '  and  had  reference 
to  '  judicial  astrology.'  " 

In  his  admirable  lecture  on  ''  The  Education  of  the 
Judgment,"  Professor  Faraday  dwells  upon  the  impor- 
tance of  "  reserving  judgment"  in  matters  imperfectly 
known.  Had  scientists  generally  learned  this  lesson,  the 
history  of  modern  science  would  have  furnished  no  occa- 
sion for  such  a  chapter  as  Chapter  Y.  in  Southall's  "  Re- 
cent Origin  of  Man"  on  "  The  Fickleness  of  Science." 

§  4.   The  Language  of  Scripture, 

The  lang-uao-e  of  common  life  is  very  different  from 
that  of  science.  In  common  life  we  speak  of  things  as 
they  appear,  as  they  become  known  to  us  directly 
through  the  use  of  our  senses.     In  science  we  seek  to 


12  N"ATURE   AND    REVELATIOi^. 

represent  things  as  tliey  really  are,  and  to  do  tliis  with 
accuracy  and  completeness  ;  and  as  science  has  es- 
pecially to  do  with  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  we 
speak  of  phenomena  with  the  purpose  of  expressing  this 
relation.  In  the  language  of  common  life  we  say  the 
sun  rises  ;  and  this,  although  we  know  perfectly  well  that 
the  motion  of  the  sun  is  apparent  and  not  real — pro- 
duced by  the  turning  of  the  earth  uj)on  its  axis.  In  the 
language  of  astronomy  we  would  say  the  sun  appeared 
above  the  horizon  in  consequence  of  the  revolution  of  the 
earth  upon  its  axis  ;  or,  if  we  wished  to  be  particularly 
accurate,  we  would  add,  and  the  earth's  motion  in  its 
orbit,  and  the  refraction  of  light  in  passing  through  the 
earth's  atmosphere  ;  for  both  of  these  last-mentioned 
causes  has  something  to  do  with  the  time  of  the  sun's 
appearance  above  the  horizon. 

To  the  use  of  scientific  language  in  common  life  there 
are  two  objections — viz, : 

(1)  Such  language  is,  to  a  large  extent,  unintelligible 
to  the  mass  of  the  people.  Even  among  the  learned,  in 
one  department  of  science,  the  language  of  another  de- 
partment may  be  unintelligible.  Many  an  able  mathe- 
matician cannot  read  understandingly  a  page  of  modern 
chemistry  ;  and  many  an  accomplished  chemist  would 
find  himself  completely  at  a  loss  in  attempting  to  get  at 
the  meaning  of  a  page  of  the  best  treatise  we  have  on 
analytical  geometry. 

(2)  Scientific  language,  especially  that  of  what  are 
called,  distinctively,  the  natural  sciences,  generally  in- 
corporates in  itself  so  much  of  current  hypothesis — often 
of  hypothesis  afterward  abandoned — that  the  writings 
of  the  men  of  one  age  are  unintelligible  to  those  of 
another,  unless  read  in  the  light  which  the  history  of  the 
science  casts  upon  their  meaning.     In  illustration  of  this 


NATURE   AND   REVELATION.  13 

remark,  take  a  brief  extract  from  Nicholson's  ^'Philos- 
ophy," a  standard  work  in  its  department  a  century  ago. 

In  his  chapter  on  "  The  Marine  Acid,  and  the  Com- 
binations in  Avhich  it  is  a  Principal  Part,"  Nicholson 
writes  :  "  Black  manganese  is  the  calx  of  a  semi-metal, 
which  has  a  strong  tendency  to  combine  with  2:)lilogiston. 
If  four  ounces  of  marine  acid,  with  one  ounce  of  this  calx, 
be  put  into  a  retort,  to  which  the  apparatus  used  in  dis- 
tilling the  marine  acid  has  been  previously  adapted,  yellow 
vapors  are  abundantly  disengaged,  at  first  without  the 
assistance  of  tire,  and  afterward  by  means  of  heat. 
.  .  .  This  vapor  is  found  to  consist  of  marine  acid  de- 
prived of  one  of  its  constituent  parts — namely,  phlogis- 
ton (according  to  Scheele  ;  but  Eerthollet  has  rendered 
it  probable  that  it  consists  of  dephlogisticated  air,  com- 
bined with  marine  acid).  It  attacks  phlogistic  bodies 
with  great  vehemence,  and  dissolves  all  the  metals 
directly,  affording  the  same  salts  as  the  entire  acid  does, 
but  without  disengaging  any  inflammable  air."  This 
passage  will  be  utterly  unintelligible  to  the  common 
reader ;  and  even  to  many  a  young  chemist  of  the 
present  day  ;  and  this  for  the  reason  that  Nicholson, 
in  stating  a  fact,  has  incorporated  in  his  statement  the 
exploded  theory  of  phlogiston — a  theory  once  univer- 
sally accepted  by  chemists,  and  clung  to  even  after  the 
progress  of  discovery  compelled  them  to  suppose  that 
phlogiston  was  lighter  than  nothing  ;  that  instead  of  pos- 
sessing weight,  as  other  elements  did,  it  possessed  the 
opj)osite  of  weight — i.e.,  levity,  as  they  styled  it. 

For  such  reasons  as  these,  the  use  of  scientific  lan- 
e'uao-e  is  limited  to  treatises  on  science  :  while  the  Ian- 
guage  of  common  life  is  that  used  in  all  other  writings  ; 
and  this,  even  where  the  greatest  accuracy  is  desired. 
The  carefully  written  laws  of  the  land  speak  of  the  sun's 


14  NATURE   AND   KEVELATION. 

rising  and  setting  as  familiarly  as  men  do  in  common 
conversation.  Indeed,  in  so  far  as  the  truth  intended 
to  be  expressed  is  concerned,  the  language  of  common 
life  is  as  accurate  as  the  language  of  science.  When 
I  say  the  sun  rises  I  mean  to  tell  of  a  certain  phenom- 
enon— i.e.^  a  certain  thing  as  it  appears,  as  it  is  made 
known  to  my  senses,  and  not  that  event  in  relation  to 
its  cause,  as  the  astronomer  does.  For  the  same  reasons 
that  the  language  of  common  life  is  that  used  by  all  men 
in  writing  history,  geography,  chronology,  and  even 
the  laws  of  the  land,  that  language  has  been  used,  under 
the  Divine  direction,  in  writing  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Ignorance  of  this  ^ruth,  so  reasonable  in  itself,  or  a  wil- 
ful disregard  of  it  in  interpreting  the  Scriptures,  has  been 
the  cause  of  much  of  the  conflict  between  scientists  and 
divines  since  the  revival   of  learning  in  these  modern 

times. 

§  5.   The  AiithoT^s  Object  in  Writing. 

Bearing  in  mind  ''  the  incompleteness  of  science,"  the 
author,  in  the  following  papers,  has  not  attempted  to 
work  out  a  harmony  of  science  and  revelation — that  is, 
a  work  belonging  to  the  future.  What  he  has  attempted, 
as  the  general  title  of  the  work  indicates,  is  to  collate  the 
two  books  of  nature  and  revelation  ;  and  this  with  the 
design  (1)  of  directing  the  reader's  attention  to  the  points 
in  which  the  latest  results  of  scientific  investigation  and 
the  statements  of  revelation,  put  on  record  many  cen- 
turies ago,  are  at  one  ;  and  (2)  to  show  that,  even  on 
points  in  which,  at  present,  there  is  apparent  discrepancy, 
there  is  no  necessary  contradiction.  Having  been  a  stu- 
dent of  science  for  half  a  century,  and  for  some  of  the 
best  years  of  his  life  a  teacher  of  science  also,  and 
through  all  these  years  a  devout  student  of  Scripture, 
he  can   heartily  indorse  the  declaration  of   the   British 


MATURE    AND    REVELATlOi?'.  15 

scientists,  quoted  in  §  1 — ^'  We  confidently  believe  that 
a  time  will  come  when  the  two  records  will  be  seen  to 
agree  in  every  particular." 

The  papers  embraced  in  this  volume  have  been  writ- 
ten, and  several  of  them  given  to  the  public,  either 
through  the  press  or  from  the  platform,  in  the  course  of 
the  last  few  years  ;  but  all  of  them  have  now  been  care- 
fully rewritten,  so  as  to  embody  the  latest  results  of 
scientific  research  and  biblical  criticism,  and  thus  a  true 
representation  of  the  case  as  it  stands  to-day. 


II. 

PEIMEYAL  MAN.* 

§  6.   The  Question  Stated. 

How   LONG  AGO,  AND   IN   WHAT    CONDITION   AS   TO    CrVTXIZATION   AND   Ke- 
lilGION,  DID  THE   EaCE  OF  MaN  BEGIN   ITS  CoUESE  IN  THE  WOKLD  ? 

Until  very  recently  the  opinion  entertained  by  those 
who  thought  upon  the  subject  at  all  was,  that  man  was 
created  some  six  or  seven  thousand  years  ago,t  and  that 
he  commenced  his  course  as  a  civilized  being,  believing 
in  the  one  only  living  and  true  God. 

A  far  greater  antiquity  has  been  claimed  for  him  by 
some  of  late  years  ;  and  we  are  told  that  man,  beginning 
his  course  as  a  savage,  has  gradually  raised  himself 
through  what  are  termed  the  paleolithic,  the  neolithic, 
the  bronze,  and  the  iron  ages,  each  of  which  lasted  for 
many  thousands  of  years,  until  he  reached  the  begin- 

*  The  substance  of  this  paper  was  originally  delivered  as  a  lec- 
ture at  the  Summer  School  of  the  American  Institute  of  Christian 
Philosophy,  at  Key  East,  N.  J.,  July  29th,  1885,  and  subsequently 
published  in  Christian  Thought. 

f  "A  world's  era,  dating  from  the  creation,  and  constructed  out 
of  the  Old  Testament,  was  in  use  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of 
Christ,  The  Jewish  historian  Josephus  employs  it  in  his  work  on 
archaeology.  Such  an  era  seems  to  recommend  itself  in  several  re- 
spects, but  its  construction  presents  difficulties  which  can  hardly 
ever  be  overcome.  Every  scholar  who  tries  it  comes  to  a  different  re- 
sult. Julius  Africanus  counts  from  the  creation  to  Christ  5500 
years  ;  Eusebius,  Bede,  and  the  Roman  Martyrologum,  5199  ;  Scaliger 
and  Calvisius,  3950  ;  Kepler  and  Petarius,  3984  ;  Usher,  followed  by 
our  English  Bibles,  4004. "  — Schaff-  Herzog's  Encyclopaedia,  art.  * '  Era. '  * 


PKIMEVAL    MAN.  17 

nings  of  our  modern  civilization.  This  opinion  has  been 
supported  with  especial  zeal  by  those  who  adopt  the 
hypotliesis  of  man's  evolution  from  tlie  brute  ;  indeed, 
it  would  seem  to  be  a  necessary  consequence  of  such  an 
origin  for  him,  even  though  evolution  be  regarded  but 
as  "  a  mode  of  creation."  To  an  examination  of  the 
problem  thus  presented  we  will  now  turn  our  attention. 

§  7.  Advance  and  Degradation  alike  Common. 

Beginning  our  examination,  where  all  examination  of 
such  a  subject  must  begin,  if  we  would  arrive  at  the 
truth,  with  the  present  condition  of  man,  we  find  him 
in  every  possible  stage  of  civilization,  from  the  utter 
savagery  of  the  Digger  Indians  of  Korth  America  and 
the  Weddas  of  Ceylon  to  the  advanced  civihzation  of 
the  English-speaking  nations,  who  dominate  the  world. 
And  comj)aring  the  present  condition  of  the  nations 
with  what  authentic  history  tells  us  it  was  a  few  centuries 
ago,  we  learn  that  while  some  nations  have  been  steadily 
advancing  in  civilization,  others  have  been  stationary, 
and  others,  again,  have  retrograded.  The  American 
Encylopiedia,  in  its  article  on  Ethnology,  written  by  an 
evolutionist  and  an  advocate  of  the  great  antiquity  of 
man,  marks  only  five  of  the  thirteen  great  families  into 
which  it  divides  the  human  race  as  advancing  in  civiliza- 
tion at  the  present  time,  while  four  are  stationary,  and 
the  remaining  four  are  retrograding. 

An  instance  of  retrogradation  is  furnished  us  by  the 
aborigines  of  our  own  country.  "  There  are  abundant 
remains,"  writes  Sir  John  Lubbock,  ''  of  a  very  ancient 
American  civilization,  which  was  marked  by  the  con- 
struction of  great  public  works  and  by  the  development 
of  an  agriculture  founded  on  the  maize,  which  is  a  cereal 
indigenous  to  the  continent  of  America.     This  civiliza- 


18  NATUKE   AND   BEVELATIOi?'. 

tion  was  subsequently  lost,  and  then  succeeded  a  period 
in  wliicli  man  relapsed  into  partial  barbarism."  (''  Pre- 
historic Times,"  p.  234:.) 

An  instance  of  the  extreme  degradation  of  a  once 
highly  civilized  people  we  have  in  the  Yeddas,  or 
Weddas,  of  Ceylon.  Of  this  people  Canon  Rawlinson  tells 
us  that  a  careful  study  of  their  language  proves  them  to 
be  ^'  the  degenerate  descendants  of  the  Sanskrit  Aryans 
who  conquered  India;"  and  he  adds:  '*  It  is  difficult 
to  conceive  of  a  degradation  which  could  be  more  com- 
plete. The  Sanskrit  Aryans  must,  by  their  language 
and  literature,  have  been  at  the  time  of  their  conquest 
in  a  fairly  advanced  stage  of  civilization.  The  Weddas 
are  savages  of  a  type  than  which  it  is  scarcely  possible 
to  conceive  anything  more  debased.  Their  language  is 
limited  to  some  few  hundred  vocables  ;  they  cannot  count 
beyond  two  or  three  ;  they  have,  of  course,  no  idea  of 
letters  ;  they  liav^e  in  a  domesticated  condition  no  animal 
but  the  dog  ;  they  have  no  arts  beyond  those  of  making 
bows  and  arrows,  and  constructing  huts  of  a  very  rude 
kind  ;  they  are  said  to  have  no  idea  of  God,  and  scarcely 
any  memory.  They  with  difficulty  obtain  a  subsistence 
by  means  of  the  bow,  and*  are  continually  dwiiidliiig, 
and  threaten  to  become  extinct. "  (' '  Origin  of  In  ations,' ' 
pp.  6,  7.) 

In  view  of  such  facts  as  these — and  many  more  of  like 
character  might  be  cited— the  Duke  of  Argyll  writes : 
*'I^othing  in  the  natural  history  of  man  can  be  more 
certain  than  that,  both  morally  and  intellectually  and 
physically,  he  can,  and  he  often  does,  sink  from  a  higher 
to  a  lower  level.  This  is  true  of  man  both  collective- 
ly and  individually,  of  men  and  of  societies  of  men. 
Some  regions  of  the  world  are  strewn  with  monuments 
of  civilizations  vv^hich   have   passed   away.     Eude   and 


PRIMEVAL   MAN.  19 

barbarous  tribes  stare  with  wonder  on  the  remains  of 
temples,  of  which  thej  cannot  conceive  the  purpose, 
and  of  cities  which  are  the  dens  of  beasts."  ("  Primeval 
Man,"  p.  156.)  And  the  venerable  professor  of  ancient 
history  at  Oxford  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  "sav- 
agery and  civilization  are  the  two  opposite  poles  of  our 
social  condition,  states  between  which  men  oscillate 
freely,  passing  from  either  to  the  other  with  almost 
equal  ease,  according  to  the  external  circumstances 
wherewith  they  are  surrounded."  ("  Origin  of  Na- 
tions," p.  8.) 

§  8.   True  Significance  of  the  "  Ages^ 

The  several  ages — as  they  are  called — of  stone,  bronze, 
iron,  and  a  higher  civilization  are  not,  nor  have  they 
ever  been,  ages  in  the  progress  of  the  human  race  as  a 
whole,  but  only  in  that  of  particular  peoples  or  nations — 
peoples  in  all  these  stages  of  progress  living  not  only  at 
the  same  time,  but  often  side  by  side,  as  did  the  Eng- 
lish colonists,  the  Eed  Indians,  and  the  Aztecs  in  this 
country  two  centuries  ago. 

l^ov  does  the  passage  of  a  particular  people  through 
one  of  these  ages — the  Stone  Age,  for  example— neces- 
sarily require  thousands  of  years.  Where  a  savage 
people  are  brought  in  contact  with  a  civilized  one  they 
may  pass  through  all  these  "  ages"  in  the  course  of  a 
generation  or  two.  Such  has  been  the  case  with  the 
civilized  Indians,  now  quietly  settled  in  our  "Indian 
Territory."  As  Dr.  Southall  remarks,  "The  Stone 
Age  is  not  necessarily  associated  with  antiquity.  It  is  a 
stage  of  civilization,  and  not  a  measure  of  time." 
("  Recent  Origin  of  Man,"  p.  388.) 

Nor  are  these  several  ages  always  stages  in  the  progress 
of  a  people.     They  may  be  stages  in  a  course  of  degra- 


20  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

dation,  as  was  the  fact,  according  to  Sir  Jolm  Lubbock, 
with  respect  to  the  Stone  Age,  in  which  many  tribes  of 
our  Isorth  American  Indians  were  found  living,  at  the 
first  settlement  of  the  country  by  Europeans.  The  Stone 
Age  may  mark  the  last  stage  in  the  decadence  of  a  once 
highly  civihzed  people,  as  well  as  the  first  stage  in  the 
advance  of  a  savage  people  toward  civilization. 

The  assumption  by  the  advocates  of  a  great  antiquity 
for  man  that  our  existing  civilization  is  a  result  wrought 
out  by  the  human  race  as  a  whole,  through  long  ages, 
the  general  course  being  one  of  advance  from  utter  sav- 
agery at  its  beginning,  is  irreconcilable  with  the  known 
facts  in  the  case.  The  question  under  examination  can- 
not be  settled  by  any  general  reasoning  upon  what  is  as- 
sumed to  be  the  nature  of  man  and  the  necessary  prog- 
ress in  civilization,  nor  can  it  be  settled  by  a  study  of 
the  existing  condition  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and 
their  history  for  the  few  centuries  which  authentic  history 
covers  in  the  case  of  many  of  them.  In  seeking  an 
answer  to  it,  we  must  make  use  of  written  history,  so 
far  as  that  is  available  ;  and  when  that  fails  ns,  we  must 
turn  to  the  '^monuments"  and  tradition  and  every 
trace  of  himself  of  every  kin^  which  man  has  left  behind 
him  in  the  distant  past.  Geology,  anthropology,  and 
archaeology,  as  well  as  history,  traditional,  monumental, 
and  written,  have  a  right  to  be  heard  ;  and  to  their  testi- 
mony let  us  now  turn  our  attention.  The  examination 
of  each  of  these  several  kinds  of  testimony  will  be,  neces- 
sarily, brief  ;  but  not  so  brief,  I  hope,  as  to  prevent 
our  reaching  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 


PRIMEVAL   MAN".  21 

I.  The  Testimony  of  Science. 
§  9.    The  Testimony  of  Geologtj. 

On  one  point  tlie  testimony  of  geology  respecting 
primeval  man  is  definite  and  unquestionable,  and  tliat 
is,  that  man  is  ''^  the  latest  born  "  of  the  inhabitants  of 
our  earth.  From  the  fauna  to  which  he  belongs  more 
than  one  species  of  animal  has  disappeared,  but,  in  so  far 
as  is  known,  not  one  has  been  added  since  he  came  into 
being. 

From  time  to  time  during  the  last  half  century  the 
announcement  has  been  made  that  human  remains  had 
been  found  in  positions  which  demonstrated  a  much 
greater  antiquity  for  man  than  had  hitherto  been  allowed  ; 
but  in  every  instance  a  more  careful  examination  has 
proved  this  claim  to  be  unfounded.  Among  the  most 
noted  of  these  cases  are  the  following — viz. : 

1.  ''  The  fossil  man  of  Guadeloupe,^''  for  which  Nott 
and  Gliddon,  in  their  ''  Types  of  Mankind,"  published 
in  1854,  claimed  a  great  antiquity.  ''  There  were  two 
of  these  skeletons,  which  were  found  imbedded  in  the 
solid  rock  on  the  northern  coast  of  Guadeloupe,  in  the 
"West  Indies.  One  of  these  is  in  the  British  Museum, 
and  the  other  in  the  Royal  Cabinet  in  Paris.  ...  A 
careful  study  of  them  has  led  to  the  conclusion  that  they 
are  the  remains  of  Indians  killed  in  battle  not  more  than 
two  centuries  ago.  The  rock  is  a  limestone,  which  is 
forming  daily  on  that  coast.  .  .  .  And  the  skeletons 
still  retain  some  of  their  animal  matter,  and  all  their 
phosphate  of  lime."  (Southall's  ^'  Eecent  Origin  of 
Man,"  pp.  n,  78.) 

2.  The  fossil  human  hones  found,  as  was  re^ported, 


22  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

hy  Count  Pourtales,  in  the  coral  reefs  of  Florida,  and 
which  Professor  L.  Agassi z  calculated  to  be  ten  thousand 
years  old,  basing  his  calculations  upon  what  he  consid- 
ered the  rate  of  growth  in  coral  reefs.  Respecting  this 
case,  the  American  Naturalist,  vol.  1,  p.  434,  contains 
the  following  statement :  ^'  In  regard  to  the  alleged  dis- 
covery of  human  bones  in  the  coral  formation  of  Florida, 
which  was  first  published  by  Professor  Agassiz  in  Nott 
and  Gliddon's  '  Types  of  Mankind,'  and  has  appeared  in 
other  works,  including  Lyell's  '  Antiquity  of  Man,' we 
beg  to  give  our  readers  the  following  statement,  in  his 
own  words,  of  Count  L.  F.  Pourtales,  the  original  discov- 
erer of  these  bones  :  '  The  human  jaw  and  other  bones 
found  in  Florida  by  myself  in  1848  were  not  in  a  coral 
formation,  but  in  a  fresh- water  sandstone,  on  the  shore  of 
Lake  Monroe,  associated  with  fresh-water  shells  of  species 
still  living  in  the  Lake  (Paludina,  Ampullaria,  etc.).  No 
date  can  be  assigned  to  that  de|)Osit,  at  least  from  present 
observation.'  " 

3.  ''  The  Natchez  man,^'^  as  it  was  called— a  human 
pelvis  found  in  the  bottom  of  a  ravine  cut  througli  the 
fluviatile  deposit  at  Natchez,  Miss. ,  which  Sir  Charles 
Lyell  estimated  to  have  an  age  of  one  hundred  thousand 
years.  On  this  case  I  remark :  (1)  Professor  C.  G. 
Forshey,  who  subsequently  examined  the  spot  where  this 
bone  was  found,  says  :  '^  It  was  probably  not  in  situ,  but 
this  loam  and  the  bone  too  had  caved  in  from  some  point 
above  and  been  washed  thither.  A  dozen  plantation 
burial-places  and  Indian  mounds  and  camps  had  been 
exposed  above  for  centuries.  The  probabilities  are  a 
hundred  to  one  that  this  bone  was  not  of  the  bluff  forma- 
tion. (2)  The  conclusion  of  Lyell  respecting  the  age  of 
this  bone  is  based  upon  anotlier  conclusion  of  liis,  that 
the  delta  of  the  Mississippi  has  been  one  hundred  thou- 


PRIMEVAL   MAN".  23 

sand  years  in  forming.  Since  Lyeirs  estimate  more 
accurate  observations  on  the  rate  of  formation  of  the 
Mississippi  delta  have  reduced  the  estimate  of  its  age  to 
fourteen  thousand  two  hundred  years,  according  to  Pro- 
fessor Hitchcock,  or  four  thousand  four  hundred,  accord- 
ing to  Majors  Humphreys  and  Abbot,  United  States  en- 
gineers, the  latest  authorities  on  the  subject."* 

Such  are  three  of  the  cases  in  which  certain  geologists 
thought  for  a  time  that  they  had  obtained  proof  of  a  great 
antiquity  for  man — three  among  the  most  noted  cases, 
and  fair  specimens,  I  think,  of  the  wdiole  class.  In  view 
of  them  all,  my  conclusion  is  that  while  geology  dis- 
tinctly testifies  that  man  is  the  '^latest  born"  of  the 
living  creatures  inhabiting  our  earth,  it  can  tell  us  nothing 
definite  about  the  time  of  his  birth — certainly  nothing  at 
variance  with  the  idea  that  he  began  his  course  on  earth 
not  more  than  six  or  seven  thousand  years  ago. 

§  10.   The  Testhnony  of  AntJiropology. 

At  one  time  it  was  claimed  that  certain  human  skulls 
which  had  been  discovered,  and  which  from  the  position 
in  which  they  were  found  were  regarded  as  the  skulls 

*  In  the  Philadelphia  Presbyterian  of  August  22d,  1885,  I  find  the 
following:  "Oftentimes  we  have  reports  that  human  remains  have 
been  discovered  in  some  of  the  geological  strata.  Then  we  have  fig- 
ured out  for  us  how  old  the  deposit  is,  and  how  old  man  must  be, 
seeing  that  his  remains  are  found  so  deepl}'-  buried  in  these  forma- 
tions. Thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  years  are  claimed,  and 
the  great  antiquity  of  man  is  declared  to  be  demonstrated.  The  last 
discovery  has  been  made  in  Mexico,  and  near  the  capitol.  Human 
bones  have  been  found  in  a  stratum  of  travertine,  and  their  antiquity 
has  been  argued."  But  Professor  Newberry,  of  Columbia  College,  has 
weighed  the  reports,  and  says  :  •'  It  is  jiossible  that  we  have  in  these 
bones  the  oldest  record  of  man's  occupation  of  the  continent,  but  no 
facts  have  yet  been  brought  to  light  which  prove  that  the  deposit 
containing  them  was  not  made  within  a  thousand  years. " 


24  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

of  paleolithic  men — '^tlie  Neanderthall  skull,"  for  ex- 
ample— demonstrated  a  great  difference  between  these 
men  and  the  men  of  the  present  day,  and  so  a  much 
greater  antiquity  for  man  than  had  hitherto  been  allowed 
him.  A  more  careful  and  extended  examination  has  led 
anthropologists  to  a  different  conclusion. 

^^  The  most  ancient  of  all  known  human  skulls," 
writes  the  Duke  of  Aygyll,  ''is  so  ample  in  its  dimen- 
sions that  it  might  have  contained  the  brains  of  a  philos- 
opher." So  conclusive  is  this  evidence  against  any 
change  whatever  in  the  specific  characters  of  man  since 
the  oldest  human  being  yet  known  was  born,  that  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  pronounces  it  to  be  clearly  indicated  that 
the  first  traces  of  the  primordial  stock  whence  man  has 
proceeded  need  no  longer  be  sought  by  those  who  en- 
tertain any  form  of  the  doctrine  of  progressive  develop- 
ment in  the  newest  tertiaries  ;  but  lie  adds  they  may 
be  looked  for  in  an  epoch  more  distant  from  the  age  of 
those  tertiaries  than  that  it  is  from  us."  ("Primeval 
Man,"  pp.  73,  Y4.)  In  explanation  of  the  remark  of 
Professor  Huxley,  quoted  above,  I  would  remind  the 
reader  that  "  the  newest  tertiaries''  are  the  oldest  strata 
in  which  human  remains  have  as  yet  been  found. 

Professor  Pfaff,  of  the  University  of  Erlangen — the 
latest  authority  on  this  subject  I  have  seen — after  giving 
a  tabular  statement  of  the  dimensions  of  a  large  number 
of  very  ancient  skulls — paleolithic  skulls,  as  they  are 
called — collected  in  Great  Britain  and  France,^  reaches 
the  conclusion  :  ''  We  see  very  clearly  from  all  this  that 
the  size  of  the  brain  of.  the  oldest  population  known  to 
us  is  not  such  as  to  permit  us  to  place  them  on  a  lower 


*  "As  these  skulls  are   partly  fragmentary,  we  shall  best  obtain 
figures  adapted  for  the  comparison  of  their  contents  by  adding  the 


PRIMEVAL    MAN".  25 

level  tlian  tliat  of  the  now  living  inhabitants  of  tlie 
earth."  And,  he  subsequently  adds,  "  The  brain  of 
the  ape  most  like  man  does  not  amount  to  quite  a  third 
of  the  brain  of  the  lowest  race  of  men  ;  it  is  not  half  the 
size  of  the  brain  of  a  new-born  child.  The  same  gulf 
which  is  found  to-day  between  man  and  the  ape  goes 
back  with  undiminished  breadth  and  depth  to  the  tertiary 
period."     C'  The  Origin  of  Man,"  pp.  41,  51.) 

§  11.   The  Testimony  of  ArchcBology. 

The  testimony  of  archaeology  respecting  primeval 
man  comes  from  several  different  sources. 

1.  That  of  the  megalithiG  monuments  and  tumuli 
found  in  various  parts  of  the  world.  One  of  the  most 
celebrated  of  these  megalithic  monuments  is  that  of 
Stonehenge,  on  Salisbury  Plains,  Eng.  When  and  by 
whom  was  this  erected  ?  By  the  Druids,  probably,  long 
ages  before  the  conquest  of  Great  Britain  by  the  Romans, 
say  some.  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  in  his  "History  of 
Great  Britain,"  written  in  the  twelfth  century — and  he 
is  followed  in  this  by  all  subsequent  chroniclers — tells  us 
that  Ainbrosius,  the  successor  of  Yortigern,  erected 
Stonehenge  as  a  monument  to  three  hundred  British 
noblemen  treacherously  slain  by  Hengist  about  a.d.  462. 
In  confirmation  of  this  date,  we  have  the  facts  that 
some  of  the   great   stones   are   dressed    evidently   with 


measures  for  the  lieight,  breadth,  and  length  of  the  skulls  ;  and  po 
doing  we  obtain  the  following  figures — viz.  : 

Average  of  48  skulls  of  the  Stone  Age  from  England .  18.877  in. 

Average  of  7  skulls  of  the  same  age  from   Wales 18.858  in. 

Average  of  36  skulls  of  the  same  age  from  France 18.220  in. 

The  average  of  the  now  living  European  is 18.579  in. 

The  average  of  the  now  living  Hottentot  is 17.795  in. 

— "  The  Origin  of  Man"  p.  41. 


26  NATURE    Ai^D    llEVELATION". 

bronze  or  iron  tools,  and  that  iron  arrow-lieacls  and 
pieces  of  iron  armor,  nearly  eaten  up  with  rust,  have 
been  dug  up  within  its  enclosure. 

Mr.  James  Fergusson,  F.R.S.,  who  has  made  this  a 
special  subject  of  study  in  his  "  Eude  Stone  Monu- 
ments," published  in  1872,  states  as  his  conclusion  that 
the  ^'Cromlechs"  of  Great  Britain  and  France  belong 
to  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  and  states  that 
three  fourths  of  these  monuments  have  yielded  sepulchral 
deposits  to  the  explorer,  and,  including  the  "tumuli," 
probably  nine  tenths  have  proved  to  be  burial-places. 
For  the  tumuli,  or  '^  mounds,"  as  they  are  more  common- 
ly spoken  of  among  us,  of  Is"orth  and  South  America,  no 
more  ancient  date  can  reasonably  be  claimed  than  for 
those  of  Europe. 

2.  Thai  of  the  remains  of  laTce  dwellings — i.e.,  build- 
ings erected  upon  piles,  which  have  been  discovered  in 
the  course  of  the  last  thirty  years  in  many  of  the  lakes 
of  Switzerland  and  adjacent  countries.  An  age  of  six  or 
seven  thousand  years  has  been  claimed  for  these  remains, 
chiefly  on  the  ground  of  the  rude  stone  implements 
found  in  them. 

In  considering  this  claim  I  would  ask  you  to  remark 
the  facts  :  (1)  That  mingled  with  these  rude  stone  im- 
plements, others  of  bronze  and  iron  occur,  together 
with  the  remains  of  the  horse,  the  ox,  the  goat,  the 
sheep,  and  the  dog,  all  domesticated  animals  ;  and  wheat, 
bailey,  and  millet,  in  some  instances  roasted  and  stored 
up  in  jars,  precisely  as  is  now  done  in  these  same  countries  ; 
and,  very  recently,  silver  coins  of  the  eighth  and  tenth 
centuries  have  been  dredged  up  from  the  ruins  of  the 
lake-dwellings  of  Lake  Paladru,  in  southern  France ; 
(2)  that  pile-dwellings  are  delineated  on  Trajan's  column 
at  Eome.     The  date  of  this  column  is  about  a.d.  105,  and 


PRIMEVAL    MAK.  27 

it  was  erected  to  commemorate  tlie  conquest  of  Dacia,  the 
modern  Hungary.  Such  dweUings  have  been  common 
in  many  countries  in  ages  past,  and  are  still  in  use  in 
some,  being  resorted  to  for  protection  against  the  at- 
tacks of  enemies,  as  in  Ireland,  as  late  as  1562,  or  to 
escape  the  periodic  floods  to  which  the  country  is  sub- 
ject, as  in  Venezuela  to-day. 

3.  That  of  the  Danish  KjohTceii-moddings,  or  shell- 
onounds.  A  great  antiquity  is  claimed  for  these  shell 
mounds  on  the  ground  of  the  rude  character  of  the  stone 
implements  found  in  them — metal  implements  being 
entirely  wanting  in  many  of  them^and  the  presence  of 
bones  of  animals  now  extinct. 

Shell-mounds  similar  in  character  to  those  of  Denmark 
are  to  be  found  along  the  coast  of  many  countries.  On 
our  own  coast  they  are  of  frequent  occurrence  all  the  way 
from  Nova  Scotia  to  Florida.  Those  of  our  country  are 
confessedly  of  Indian  origin.  Knowing  the  history  of 
the  early  settlement  of  this  country  by  Europeans,  what 
would  we  naturally  expect  to  find  true  respecting  these 
shell-mounds  which  the  Indians  have  left  behind  them  ? 
I  answer  :  (1)  In  the  lower  strata,  or  the  older  mounds, 
rude  stone  (paleolithic)  implements  alone  ;  (2)  in  the 
upper  strata  and  the  newer  mounds,  formed  after  the 
arrival  of  European  settlers,  the  same  rude  stone  imple- 
ments, mingled  with  copper  ornaments  and  iron  hatchets  ; 
and  this  is  just  what  we  do  find.  Is  it  strange,  then, 
that  two  thousand  years  ago,  when  the  natives  of  Den- 
mark stood  to  the  civilized  Romans  in  very  much  the 
same  relation  that  our  Indians  did  to  civihzed  Europeans 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  that  the  same  things 
should  be  found  true  of  the  shell-mounds  they  left  be- 
hind them  ? 

The  truth  is,  ''  The  whole  argument  which  has  been 


28  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

founded  on  flint  implements,"  as  tlie  Duke  of  Argyll 
well  says,  "  is  liable  to  these  two  fundamental  objec- 
tions :  (1)  That  flint  implements  are  a  very  uncertain 
index  of  civilization,  even  among  the  tribes  who  use 
them  ;  and  (2)  that  they  are  no  index  at  all  of  the  state 
of  civilization  of  other  tribes  who  lived  at  the  same 
time  in  other  portions  of  the  globe.  The  flnding  of  flint 
implements,  for  example,  however  rude,  in  England  or 
Denmark  or  France,  affords  no  evidence  whatever  of 
the  condition  of  the  industrial  arts  in  the  same  age  upon 
the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  or  the  Nile."  ("  Primeval 
Man,"  p.  184.) 

4.  That  of  the  ^'' hone-caves''''  of  Europe^  in  which 
the  bones  of  man  are  found  mingled  with  those  of  the 
cave-bear,  the  cave-hyena,  the  mammoth,  the  woolly 
elephant,  the  hippopotamus,  and  the  reindeer — animals 
now  extinct,  or  else  no  longer  inhabitants  of  the  coun- 
tries in  which  these  caves  occur. 

If  man  was  the  contemporary  of  these  animals — and 
the  mingling  of  his  bones  with  theirs  in  the  same  caves 
would  seem  to  place  this  beyond  reasonable  doubt — the 
question  presents  itself.  How  long  ago  is  it  that  these 
animals  inhabited  Central  Europe  ?  and  when  did  they 
cease  to  exist,  if  they  have  disappeared  altogether  '\  (1) 
The  cave-bear  and  cave-hyena,  once  thought  to  be  ex- 
tinct species  of  these  animals,  and  so  very  ancient,  more 
careful  examination  has  shown  to  be  identical  with  the 
species  now  living  ;  (2)  the  reindeer,  now  conflned  to 
Northern  Europe,  Ci3esar  and  Sallust  both  tell  us,  was 
common  in  Gaul  (France)  and  Germany  in  their  day  ; 
(3)  the  remains  of  the  woolly  elephant  occur  in  great 
abundance  in  Siberia,  in  some  instances  with  the  flesh  in 
such  a  condition  as  to  be  eaten  by  dogs  ;  (4)  the  remains 
of  the  mammoth  are  found  in  surface  deposits  and  peat 


PRIMEVAL   MAN".  29 

swamps — e.g.,  in  the  Dismal  Swamp  of  Yirginia — with 
the  bones  retaining  a  large  portion  of  their  animal  matter, 
thus  proving  their  comparatively  recent  extinction.  In 
confirmation  of  this,  in  the  ''  Smithsonian  Contributions 
to  Knowledge,"  vol.  3,  p.  142,  we  are  told  that  among 
the  IN'orth  American  Indians  there  are  native  legends 
whicli  indicate  a  traditional  knowledge  of  more  than  one 
of  these  extinct  animals,  among  them  the  mastodon  or 
mammoth.  Now,  whether  w^e  do  or  do  not  adopt  the 
supposition  of  Dr.  Southall,  that  these  human  bones  found 
in  the  bone-caves  of  Europe  are  those  of  ^^  the  first  race 
which  reached  Western  Europe  from  Western  Asia,  and 
were  subsequently  pushed  further  north  by  the  Celts," 
this  much,  I  think,  is  certainly  true,  tliat  there  is  nothing 
in  the  known  facts  of  the  case  which  demands  for  them 
an  antiquity  greater  than  four  thousand  or  five  thousand 
years. 

§  12.   Conclusion  from  the  Testimony  of  Science. 

The  reader  has  now  before  him  a  statement  of  all  the 
important  facts  of  geology,  anthropology,  and  archaeol- 
ogy bearing  upon  the  question  of  primeval  man.  It 
is  brief,  but  1  have  tried  to  make  it  a  fair  statement. 
To  any  who  may  wish  to  pursue  the  subject  further,  I 
would  recommend  Dr.  James  C.  Southall's  "  E-ecent 
Origin  of  Man,"  a  work  whicli  contains  the  most  full 
and  thorough  discussion  of  the  whole  subject  I  know  of 
in  the  English  language.  This  testimony  of  science 
does  not  settle  the  question  respecting  the  age  and  condi- 
tion of  primeval  man  ;  and  certainly  it  furnishes  no 
authority  for  such  statements  as  that  of  Clodd — '^Man 
was  once  wild  and  rough  and  savage,  frightened  at  liis 
own  shadow,  and  still  more  frightened  at  the  roar  of  the 
thunder    and   the    quiver   of   the   lightning,  which   he 


30  NATURE   Ai^D    REVELATION". 

tlionglit  were  the  clappings  of  the  wings  and  the  flash- 
ings of  the  eyes  of  the  angry  Spirit,  as  he  came  flying 
from  the  sun  ;  and  that  it  has  taken  many  thousands  of 
years  for  man  to  become  as  wise  and  skilful  as  we  now 
see  him."     (Clodd's  ''  Childhood  of  the  World,"  p.  2.) 


II.   The  Testimony  of  History. 
§13.   '^  The  Cradle  of  the  Human  Race. 


5> 


The  unity  of  the  human  race,  a  point  respecting 
which  there  was  at  one  time  much  difference  of  opinion, 
may  now  be  regarded  as  a  settled  question.  Professor 
Huxley  writes  :  ''  I  cannot  see  any  good  ground  what- 
ever, or  even  any  tenable  sort  of  evidence,  for  behoving 
that  there  is  more  than  one  species  of  man."  ('^  Origin 
of  Species,"  Lecture  Y.)  And  the  Duke  of  Argyll: 
^^  On  this  point,  therefore,  of  the  unity  of  man's  origin, 
those  who  bow  to  the  authority  of  the  most  ancient  and 
the  most  venerable  traditions,  and  those  who  accept  the 
most  imposing  and  the  most  popular  of  modern  scientific 
theories,  are  found  standing  on  common  ground,  and 
accepting  the  same  result.*"  (''Unity  of  J^ature," 
p.  399.) 

Where  did  the  human  race  begin  its  course  ?  On 
this  point,  as  well  as  that  of  the  unity  of  the  race, 
scholars  are  pretty  well  agreed. 

The  country  known  to  us,  in  part,  as  Armenia — the 
elevated  region  in  which  the  Euphrates,  the  Tigris,  and 
the  Indus  have  their  head-waters — is  regarded  as  the 
cradle  of  the  human  race  ;  and  tliis,  among  other  rea- 
sons, because  the  most  ancient  traditions  all  point  to 
this  as  man's  starting-point,  because  this  is  the  native 
country  of  the  cereals  which  have  furnished  food  for  man 


PRIMEVAL   MAN.  31 

the  world  over,  and  because  ethnological  investigations 
all  lead  to  the  same  conclusion.  It  is  here,  and  cluster- 
ing around  this  as  a  centre,  we  find  the  oldest  nations, 
the  only  ones  that  have  a  history  reaching  back  into  the 
long  past — e.g.^  the  Chinese,  the  Indians,  the  Persians, 
the  Assyrians,  the  Jews,  the  Phoenicians,  the  Greeks, 
and  the  Egyptians. 

§  14.   The  Antiquity  of  the  Nations  of  Western  Asia. 

It  would  be  impossible  within  the  limits  of  a  brief  dis- 
cussion like  this  to  give  any  statement  in  detail  of  the 
claims  to  antiquity  of  these  several  peoples.  Instead 
thereof  I  will  ask  the  reader's  attention  to  the  conclusions 
of  Canon  Rawlinson,  stated  at  large,  with  his  reasons  for 
them,  in  his  "  Seven  Great  Monarchies,"  and,  in  brief, 
in  his  later  work,  "  The  Origin  of  JSTations."  He  writes  : 
"Exaggerated  chronologies  are  common  to  a  large 
number  of  nations  ;  but  critical  examination  has — at  any 
rate,  in  all  cases  but  one — demonstrated  their  fallacy  ; 
and  the  many  myriads  of  years  postulated  for  their  past 
civilization  and  history  by  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians, 
the  Hindoos,  the  Chinese,  and  others,  has  been  shown  to 
be  purely  fiction,  utterly  unworthy  of  belief,  and  not 
even  requiring  any  very  elaborate  refutation.  Cuneiform 
scholars  confidently  place  the  beginning  of  Babylon 
about  B.C.  2300  ;  of  Assyria,  about  b.c.  1500  ;  of  India, 
about  B.C.  1200.  Chinese  investigators  can  find  nothing 
solid  or  substantial  in  the  past  of  the  "  Celestials"  earlier 
than  B.C.  781,  or,  at  the  farthest,  b.c.  1151.  For  Phoenicia 
the  date  assigned  by  the  latest  English  investigator  is  six- 
teen or  seventeen  centuries  b.c.  .  .  .  A  concensus  of 
savants  and  scholars  almost  unparalleled  limits  tlie  past 
history  of  civilized  man  to  a  date  removed  from  our  own 
time  by  less  than  four  thousand  four  hundred  years,  ex- 


32  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

cepting  in  a  single  instance.  There  remains  one  conn- 
try,  one  civilization,  with  respect  to  which  the  learned 
are  at  variance,  there  being  writers  of  high  repute  who 
place  the  dawn  of  Egyptian  civihzation  about  b.c.  2700, 
or  only  four  centuries  before  that  of  Babylon,  w^hile  there 
are  others  who  postulate  for  it  an  antiquity  exceeding 
this  about  two  thousand  four  hundred  years. "  {''  Origin 
of  Nations,"  pp.  U7-U9.) 

§15.   The  Antiquity  of  ^gypt. 

On  what  is  this  claim  for  so  great  antiquity  for 
Egyptian  civilization  based  ?  Not  on  any  direct  monu- 
mental testimony,  although  certain  writers  speak  as  if 
it  was  upon  such  testimony,  at  least  in  part,  the  claim 
rested.  On  this  point  Rawhnson  writes  :  ''  Nothing  is 
more  certain,  nothing  more  universally  admitted  by 
Egyptologists,  than  the  absence  from  the  monuments  of 
any  continued  chronology."  (''  Origin  of  Nations," 
p.  152.)  And  in  support  of  this  statement  he  quotes  the 
authority  of  some  of  the  most  eminent  scholars  of  the 
day.* 

Professor  Owen,  the  ablest  advocate  of  the  great  an- 
tiquity of  Egyptian  civilization,  rests  its  claim  to  accept- 
ance mainly  on  the  testimony  of  Manetho,  an  Egyptian 


*  Stuart  Pool  says  the  evidence  of  the  monuments  with  regard 
to  chronology  is  neither  full  nor  explicit.  ("  Dictionary  of  the  Bible," 
vol.  1,  p.  505.)  Bunsen  :  "  History  is  not  to  be  elicited  from  the  mon- 
uments ;  not  even  its  framework,  chronology."  ("Egypt's  Place," 
vol.  1,  p.  32.)  Brugsch  :  "It  is  not  till  the  commencement  of  the 
twenty-sixth  dynasty  that  the  chronology  is  founded  upon  dates  not 
much  wanting  in  exactness."  ('*  Histoire  d'Egypt,"  p.  25.)  Marietta 
and  Lenormant  :  "The  greatest  obstacle  to  the  establishment  of  a 
regular  Egyptian  chronology  is  the  circumstance  that  the  Egyptians 
themselves  never  had  any  chronology  at  all,"  ("  Manuel  d'Histoire 
Ancienne,"  vol.  1,  p.  332  ;  Eawlinson'a  "  Origin  of  Nations,"  p.  152.) 


PRIMEVAL   MAN.  33 

priest  wlio  lived  and  wrote  near  tlie  middle  of  the  third 
century  before  Christ.  Unfortunately  for  us,  the  original 
*' History  of  Egypt,"  by  Manetho,  has  been  lost,  and 
we  have  nothing  more  than  fragments  of  it,  preserved  in 
the  writings  of  Eusebius  and  Sincellus,  together  with  a 
few  quotations  by  Joseph  us. 

Respecting  Manetho's  dynasties  of  Egyptian  kings,  it 
is  worthy  of  remark  :  (1)  That  the  earliest  dynasties  are 
rejected  by  all  as  fabulous.  Of  this  character  are  his 
dynasties  of  the  gods,  covering  a*  period  of  thirteen 
thousand  nine  hundred  years,  and  those  of  the  Manes  and 
Heroes,  covering  five  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thir- 
teen years  more  ;  and  so  the  antiquity  of  Egyptian  cisril- 
ization,  as  given  by  Manetho,  is  curtailed  nearly  twenty 
thousand  years  by  common  consent.  (2)  The  state- 
ments of  Eusebius  and  Sincellus,  each  professing  to  give 
Manetho's  numbers,  often  differ  as  to  the  length  of  the 
same  dynasty,  admitted  to  be  genuine,  in  one  instance 
as  much  as  three  hundred  years.  (3)  Manetho  states  that 
Egypt,  throughout  a  large  part  of  its  history,  was  divided 
into  three  kingdoms  :  Upper,  Middle,  and  Lower  Egypt ; 
and  there  is  abundant  proof  from  other  quarters  that 
such  was  the  fact  ;  and,  if  so,  it  seems  fair  to  conclude 
that  some  of  his  dynasties  were  contemporary.  As  to 
which,  and  how  many  of  them  were  contemporary, 
Egyptologists  are  not  agreed.  In  view  of  all  these  facts, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  anything  like  a  definite  deter- 
mination of  the  antiquity  of  Egyptian  civilization,  on 
the  authority  of  Manetho's  dynasties,  is  out  of  the 
question. 

Can  we  get  any  light  on  this  perplexing  question  from 
the  monuments  ?  A  peculiarity  in  the  construction  of 
the  Great  Pyramid,  confessedly  one  of  the  oldest,  if  not 
the  very  oldest,  of  Egyptian  monuments,  is  thought  by 


34  NATURE   AXD    REVELATIOJ^. 

some  to  give  iis  the  date  of  its  erection.  This  pyramid 
is  admirably  oriented,  and,  of  coarse,  one  of  its  sides 
faces  due  north.  In  this  north  side  is  the  entrance, 
the  long  entrance  passage  being  in  the  exact  plane  of 
the  meridian — not  horizontal — not  pointing  to  the  true 
pole,  which  would  require  an  elevation  of  30°,  the  lati- 
tude of  the  pyramid,  but  at  an  angle  of  26°  27',  accord- 
ing to  the  careful  determination  of  Piazzi  Smith,  Astron- 
omer Roval  of  Scotland.  Colonel  Howard  Vise,  who, 
forty-five  years  ago,  spent  months  in  the  study  of  this 
pyramid,  was  impressed  with  this  peculiarity,  and  think- 
ing it  possible  that  this  passage  pointed  to  what  was  the 
pole-star  at  the  time  of  its  erection,  he  communicated 
this  idea  to  Sir  John  Ilerschel,  with  the  request  that  he 
would  determine  for  him  whether  or  not  there  ever  was 
a  pole-star  which  occupied  just  the  position  indicated, 
and  which  might  have  served  as  a  guide  to  the  pyramid- 
builders  ;  and  if  there  was,  what  star  ?  and  when  did 
it  occupy  that  position  ?  As  changes  in  the  pole-star 
are  dependent  upon  the  ''  precession  of  the  equinoxes," 
and  the  rate  of  that  precession  has  been  determined, 
these  questions  were  not  difficult  to  answer.  Sir  John 
Ilerschel  determined  that  thi3  star  Alpha  Draconis,  one 
of  the  brightest  stars  in  the  northern  circumpolar  re- 
gions, was  once  pole-star,  and  occupied  the  very  posi- 
tion indicated  at  two  points  in  the  past — viz.,  b.c.  2123 
and  B.C.  3400.  For  reasons  wdiich  it  is  not  necessary  I 
should  state  here,  the  first  of  these  dates  was  accepted 
by  Colonel  Yise  ;  and  for  a  time  the  date  of  the  erection 
of  the  Great  Pyramid  was  generally  considered  settled  ; 
and,  for  myself,  I  must  say  I  have  seen  no  good  reason 
given  for  setting  aside  this  settlement.  This  pyramid, 
as  the  quarry-marks  upon  many  of  its  blocks  of  stone 
show,  was  built  during  the  reign  of  Cheops  ;  and,  ac- 


PRIMEVAL    MAK.  35 

cording  to  Manetlio's  dynasties,  not  more  than  two  or 
three  centuries  coidd  have  intervened  between  Cheops' 
reign  and  that  of  Menes,  niiiversally  regarded  as  the 
founder  of  the  Egyptian  monarchy.  Thus,  in  the  date 
of  the  bnihling  of  the  Great  Pyramid  we  have  Canon 
Kawhnson's  determination  of  the  antiquity  of  Egyptian 
civilization— viz.,  about  B.C.  2600  years—strikingly  con- 
firmed. 

The  pyramid  period  falls  very  early  m  Egyptian  his- 
tory, and  yet  its  civilization  would  seem  to  have  been 
as  perfect  as  at  any  later  period.  Sir  G.  Wilkinson 
writes  :  ^'  The  scenes  depicted  in  the  tombs  of  this  epoch 
show  that  the  Egyptians  had  already  the  same  arts  and 
habits  as  in  after  times,  and  the  hieroglyphics  in  the 
Great  Pyramid  prove  that  writing  had  been  long  in  nse. 
We  sec  no  primitive  mode  of  life  in  Egypt,  no  barbar- 
ous customs,  not  even  the  habit,  so  slowly  abandoned  by 
all  people,  of  wearing  arms  when  not  on  miUtary  service, 
nor  any  archaic  art."  (Pawlinson's  "  Herodotus,"  vol. 
2,  p.  291.)  If  to  all  this  we  add  the  architectural  skill 
exhibited  in  fixing  the  casing  stones  of  the  pyramid, 
and  in  polishing  the  marble  linings  of  the  several  pas- 
sages, and,  more  especially,  the  red  granite  linings  of 
what  is  called  the  King's  Chamber,  we  cannot  but  form  a 
high  idea  of  Egyptian  civilization  at  that  period.  In 
view  of  snch  facts  as  these,  M.  Renan  exclaims  :  "  When 
we  think  of  this  civilization,  that  it  had  no  known  in- 
fancy ;  that  this  art,  of  which  there  remain  innumerable 
monuments,  had  no  archaic  period  ;  tliat  the  Egypt  of 
Cheops  and  Cephron  is  superior,  in  a  sense,  to  all  that 
followed,  071  est  pins  de  vertlge.'''  (Quoted  in  Smith's 
"  Great  Pyramid,"  voL  8,  p.  371.) 

Admitting  the  truth  of  all  that  has  been  said  about  the 
advanced  civilization  of   the  Pyramid  period,  and  that 


36  NATURE   AND   REVELATIOif. 

we  cannot,  on  the  authority  of  authentic  history,  carry 
back  its  date  much  further  than  Canon  Rawhnson  has 
done,  Professor  Owen  contends  for  the  addition  of  some 
two  thousand  years,  on  the  ground  that  ''  sober  experi- 
ence teaches  that  arts,  language,  and  literature  are  of  slow 
growth,  the  result  of  gradual  development ;  .  .  .  that  of 
all  the  marvels  of  this  history,  the  manifestation  of  the 
dawn  of  civilization  by  such  works,  agreeably  with  the 
conceptions  of  Canon  Ilawlinson,  would  be  the  greatest. 
The  birth  of  Pallas  from  the  brain  of  Jove  would  be 
its  parallel."  (Appendix  to  the  ^' Origin  of  Kations," 
p.  259.)  This  argument  of  Professor  Owen — and!  have 
given  it  in  his  own  words — is  simply  a  "  begging  of  the 
question  "  at  issue.  A  parallel  to  the  birth  of  Pallas 
from  the  brain  of  Jove  is  just  what  those  who  hold  that 
the  human  race  began  its  course  in  a  civilized  condition 
contend  for.  As  to  the  civilization  of  Egypt,  they  hold 
that  the  Egyptians  were  not  autoch thanes,  nor  did  their 
civilization  dawn  in  the  Yalley  of  the  Nile.  Like  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race  in  our  own  country,  they  were  im- 
migrants, the  offshoot  of  a  civilized  people,  and  in  their 
settlement  of  Egypt  they  brought  with  them  the  civili- 
zation of  the  country  from  which  they  came,  as  our  fore- 
fathers did. 

This  view  of  matters  is  confirmed  by  all  we  know  of 
the  history  of  their  religion.  Piazzi  Smith  tells  us  that 
^'  the  pyramids  generally  are  without  idolatrous  decora- 
tions or  contents."  ("  The  Great  Pja-amid,"  vol.  3, 
p.  518.)  A  very  remarkable  fact  is  this,  when  their  later 
built  temples  and  tombs  are  more  thickly  covered  with 
marks  of  idolatry  than  those  of  any  other  people.  M. 
Penouf  writes  :  ''It  is  incontestably  true  that  the  sub- 
limest  portions  of  the  Egyptian  religion  are  not  the  com- 
paratively late  results  of  a  process  of  development   or 


PRIMEVAL   MAN".  37 

elimination  from  the  grosser.  The  siiblimest  portions  are 
demonstrably  ancient  ;  and  the  last  stage  of  the  Egyptian 
religion — that  known  to  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers — • 
was  by  far  the  grossest  and  most  corrupt."  ("  Hibbert 
Lectures,"  p.  119.) 

By  means  of  authentic  records,  written  and  monu- 
mental, we  have  traced  back  the  history  of  man  about 
four  thousand  five  hundred  years.  Beyond  this  date  we 
have  certain  traditions,  more  or  less  universal,  that  fur- 
nish some  liglit  to  guide  us.  To  three  of  these — the 
three  most  ancient — we  will  now  turn  our  attention. 

§  IG.   Tradition  Respecting  the  Confusion  of  Tongues. 

This  story  of  the  "  Tower  of  Tongues,"  writes 
Lenormant,  "  was  among  the  most  ancient  recollections 
of  the  Chaldeans,  and  was  one  of  the  national  traditions 
of  the  Armenians,  who  had  received  it  from  the  civilized 
nations  inhabiting  the  Tigro-Euphrates  basin."  ("Ancient 
History  of  the  East,"  p.  22.) 

Berosus  gives  the  tradition  in  the  following  form — viz. : 
"  They  say  that  the  first  inhabitants  of  the  earth, 
glorying  in  their  own  strength  and  size,  and  despising 
the  gods,  undertook  to  raise  a  tower  whose  top  should 
reach  the  sky,  in  thephice  in  which  Babylon  now  stands  ; 
but  when  it  approached  the  heavens,  the  winds  assisted 
the  gods,  and  overthrew  the  work  uj)on  its  contrivers, 
and  its  ruins  are  said  to  be  still  in  Babylon  ;  and  the 
gods  introduced  a  diversity  of  tongues  among  men,  who 
till  that  time  had  all  spoken  the  same  language  ;  and  a 
war  arose  between  Chronus  and  Titan.  The  place  in 
which  they  built  the  tower  is  now  called  Babylon,  on 
account  of  the  confusion  of  tongues,  for  confusion  is  by 
the  Hebrews  called  Babel."  (Cory's  "  Ancient  Frag- 
ments," p.  3L)     This  tradition  in  an  earlier  form  has 


38  MATURE    AND   REVELATION". 

recently  been  discovered  inscribed  on  one  of  the  Assyrian 
tablets  in  the  British  Museum,  and  a  translation  of  it 
is  given  in   "  The  Records  of  the   Past,"   vol.   7,   pp. 

129-132. 

§  17.  Tradition  of  the  Flood. 

'''  The  one  tradition,"  writes  Lenormant,  ''  which  is 
really  universal  among  those  bearing  on  the  history 
of  primeval  man,  is  that  of  the  deluge.  ...  Of  all 
traditions  relative  to  the  deluge,  by  far  the  most  curious 
is  that  of  the  Chaldeans,  made  known  to  the  Greeks  by 
BerosLis."     {"  Aucient  History  of  the  East,"  pp.  13,11.) 

This  tradition,  as  given  by  Berosus,  is  as  follows— viz. : 
''  In  the  time  of  Xisuthrus  happened  a  great  deluge,  the 
history  of  which  is  thus  described  :  The  deity  Chronus 
appeared  to  him  in  a  vision,  and  warned  him  that  upon 
the  15th  day  of  the  month  Sivan  there  would  be  a  flood 
by  which  mankind  would  be  destroyed.  He  therefore 
enjoined  him  to  write  a  history  of  the  beginning,  pro- 
cedure, and  course  of  all  things,  and  to  bury  it  in  the  City 
of  the  Sun  at  Sippora,  and  to  build  a  vessel,  and  to  take 
with  him  into  it  his  friends  and  relations,  and  convey  on 
board  ev-erything  necessary  to  sustain  life,  together  with 
all  the  different  animals,  both  birds  and  quadrupeds,  and 
to  trust  himself  fearlessly  to  the  deep.  Having  asked 
the  deity  whither  he  was  to  sail,  he  was  answered,  '  To 
the  gods  ; '  upon  which  he  offered  up  a  prayer  for  the 
good  of  mankind.  He  then  built  a  vessel  five  stadia  in 
length  and  two  in  breadth.  Into  this  he  put  every- 
thing he  had  prepared,  and  last  of  all  conveyed  into  it 
his  wife,  his  children,  and  his  friends.  After  the  flood 
had  been  upon  the  earth,  and  was  in  time  abated, 
Xisuthrus  sent  out  birds  from  the  vessel,  which,  not  find- 
ing any  food,  nor  any  place  whereupon  they  might  rest 
their  feet,  returned  to  him  again.     After  an  interv^al  of 


PRIMEVAL   MAN.  39 

some  days  he  sent  them  forth  a  second  time,  and  they 
now  I'etiirned  with  their  feet  tinged  with  mud.  He 
made  a  trial  the  third  time  w^ith  these  birds,  but  they 
returned  no  more,  from  w^ience  he  judged  that  the  sur- 
face of  the  earth  had  appeared  abov^e  the  waters.  He 
therefore  made  an  opening  in  the  vessel,  and  upon  look- 
ing out  found  that  it  was  stranded  upon  the  side  of  some 
mountain,  upon  which  he  immediately  quitted  it,  with 
his  wife,  his  daughter,  and  the  pilot.  Xisuthrus  then 
paid  his  adoration  to  the  earth  ;  and  having  constructed 
an  altar,  offered  sacrifice  to  the  gods."  (Cory's  ^'An- 
cient Fragments,"  p.  26.)  This  tradition  in  an  ear- 
lier form,  like  that  of  the  "  Tower  of  Tongues,"  has  re- 
cently been  discovered  among  the  Assyrian  tablets  in 
the  British  Museum,  and  a  translation  of  it  is  given  in 
"  The  Eecords  of  the  Past,"  vol.  7,  pp.  133-149. 

§  18.  Tradition  of  a  Golden  Age. 

'^  The  traditions  of  almost  all  nations,"  writes  Canon 
Kawlinson,  '^  place  at  the  beginning  of  human  history  a 
time  of  happiness  and  perfection,  '  a  golden  age,'  which 
has  no  features  of  savagery  or  barbarism,  but  many  of 
civilization  and  refinement.  In  the  Zendavesta,  the  first 
Assyrian  king,  after  reigning  for  a  time  in  the  original 
Aryanem  vaejo,  removes  with  his  subjects  to  a  secluded 
spot,  where  both  he  and  they  enjoy  uninterrupted  hap- 
piness. In  this  place  was  neither  overbearing  nor  mean- 
spiritedness,  neither  stupidity  nor  violence,  neither 
poverty  nor  deceit,  neither  puniness  nor  deformity, 
neither  huge  teeth  nor  bodies  beyond  the  usual  measure. 
The  inhabitants  suffered  no  defilement  from  the  evil 
spirit.  They  dwelt  amid  odoriferous  trees  and  golden 
pillars  ;  their  cattle  were  the  largest,  best,  and  most 
beautiful  on  earth  ;  they  were  themselves  a  tall  and  beau- 


40  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

tiful  race  ;  their  food  was  ambrosia],  and  never  failed 
tliem."     {''  Origin  of  Nations,"  p.  11.) 

The  Eg3'ptian  dynasties,  according  to  Manetho,  com- 
menced with  a  reign  of  the  gods,  which  lasted  for  thir- 
teen thousand  nine  hnndred  years  ;  and  it  wonld  be  in 
violation  of  all  onr  notions  of  the  fit  and  the  proper  to 
think  of  the  gods  as  reigning  over  a  race  of  savages — 
over  any  other  than  a  happy  people.  The  Chinese  his- 
torians tell  of  an  age  of  innocence,  when  the  whole  crea- 
tion enjoyed  a  state  of  happiness  ;  when  everything  was 
good,  all  being  perfect  in  their  kind.  "  The  Greeks  and 
Romans  believed  in  a  golden  age  under  the  rule  of 
Saturn  ;  and  many  of  their  poets — as,  for  example, 
Hesiod,  in  his  '  Works  and  Days,'  Aratus,  Ovid,  and, 
above  all,  Yirgil,  in  the  lirst  book  of  the  Georgics — 
Lave  turned  this  poetic  material  to  admirable  account, 
and  defined  the  gradual  decadence  of  tlie  world,  as  the 
silver,  the  brass,  and  the  iron  ages,  holding  out  at  the 
same  time  the  consolatory  hope  that  the  pristine  state 
of  things  will  one  day  return."  (Chambers's  Encyclo- 
paedia, art.  Golden  Age.) 

As  already  remarked,  in  the  light  of  authentic  history, 
written  and  monumental,  we*can  trace  back  the  history 
of  man  some  four  thousand  five  hundred  years  ;  and,  I 
now  add,  under  the  guidance  of  tradition  we  can  go 
back,  possibly,  one  thousand  or  two  thousand  years  more  ; 
and  there  we  seem  to  reach  his  beginning,  to  come  upon 
primeval  man  as  he  is  starting  upon  his  course  ;^'  and  we 


*  In  Pusey's  "Daniel,"  recently  republished  in  this  country,  I 
find  the  following  statement— viz. :  "The  known  population  of  the 
world  is  much  what  it  would  be,  according  to  recognized  rules  of  the 
increase  of  our  race,  dating  from  the  received  chronology  of  Noah, 
and  starting  with  six  persons.  Rough  as  such  calculations  must  be, 
they  wholly  exclude  the  fabulous  unbroken  antiquity  which  some 


PRIMEVAL    MAN".  41 

find  liim,  not  the  ignorant,  brutal  savage,  destitute  of 
all  religion,  which  some  would  have  us  believe  primeval 
man  to  have  been,  but  man  enjoying  his  golden  age, 
under  the  immediate  government  of  the  gods,  and  in 
happy  communion  with  them  ;  and  true  science  testifies 
to  nothing  at  variance  with  this.  I  may  be  told  that 
this  conclusion  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  hypothesis  of 
the  evolution  of  man  from  the  brute.  If  this  be  so,  all  I 
have  to  say  is,  the  worse,  then,  for  the  hypothesis  of  evo- 
lution. At  best  ''  an  unproved  hypothesis,"  to  use  the 
words  of  \^irchow,  it  cannot  be  accounted  an  integral 
part  of  true  science.  True  science  is  built  up  of  facts, 
not  fancies. 

III.  The  Testimo^s^y  of  Moses. 

§  19.  ManetJiOj  Berosus^  and  Moses  Compared. 

Thus  far  we  have  sought  to  answer  the  questions, 
When  ?  And  in  what  condition  did  the  human  race 
begin  its  course  ? — from  sources  admitted  by  all  to  be 
worthy  of  credit,  and  to  whicli  all  are  accustomed  to 
refer  when  discussing  this  subject.  1  have  purposely 
said  nothing  of  that  wonderful  ancient  history  preserved 
for  us  by  the  Jews,  which  claims  to  have  been  written 
more  than  a  thousand  years  before  Manetho  or  Berosus 
was  born — the  Pentateuch,  or  Five  Books  of  Moses. 


claim  for  the  human  race."  And  in  a  note  he  adds:  "It  is  calcu- 
lated by  M.  Faa  de  Bruns,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  scholars  of 
Cauchy,  now  Professor  at  Turin,  that,  starting  from  the  received 
chronology  of  the  flood,  b.c.  2318,  and  taking  as  the  annual  in- 
crease 2^7.  ^  number  not  far  from  that  which  represents  the  annual 
increase  of  the  population  of  France,  you  would  light  on  the  net 
number  of  the  population  of  the  earth,  1,400,000,000."  (Pusey's 
"Daniel,"  preface,  p.  xv.) 


42  NATURE    A:^D    REVELATION". 

The  testimony  of  Moses  is  studiously  ignored  by  most 
of  those  who  contend  for  a  great  antiquity  and  a  savage 
origin  for  man  ;  and  if  I  should  attempt  to  state  their 
objection  to  him,  just  as  I  believe  it  lies  in  their  own 
minds,  I  vrould  do  it  in  some  such  words  as  these  : 
Moses  was  a  priest,  and  the  Pentateuch  was  w^ritten  in 
the  interest  of  the  religion  which  he  taught  ;  and  priest- 
craft, wiiether  it  presents  itself  in  the  form  of  duties  en- 
joined or  lessons  taught,  is  not  to  be  trusted. 

''  Moses  was  a  priest."  This  is  not  the  exact  truth  ; 
his  brotlier  Aaron  was  the  priest  ;  but  let  that  pass. 
And  who  was  Berosus  ?  A  priest.  And  he  tells  us 
expressly  that  the  substance  of  his  history  was  derived 
from  the  temple  records  of  Babylon.  And  who  was 
Manetho  ?  A  priest.  And  he  too  professes  to  derive 
his  information  from  the  temple  records  and  priestly  tra- 
ditions of  Egypt.  If,  then,  we  accept  the  testimony  of 
the  two  priests — Berosus  and  Manetho — how  can  we,  v/ith 
any  show  of  reason,  reject  that  of  Moses  on  the  ground  of 
his  priestly  character  ?  The  truth  is,  in  those  early  ages 
in  the  East,  as  in  Great  Britain  five  hundred  years  ago, 
education  was  almost  entirely  confined  to  the  priesthood. 
Sir  Walter  Scott  is  true  to  history  when  he  makes  a  lead- 
ing nobleman  of  Scotkmd  of  that  age  say  : 

"At  first  in  heart  it  liked  mo  ill, 
"When  the  King  praised  his  clerkly  skill  ; 
Thanks  to  St.  Bota'n,  son  of  mine 
Save  Gowan,  ne'er  conld  pen  a  line." 

It  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  discredit  the  histories 
of  the  Yenerablo  Bede,  or  Lingard,  because  of  the  priest- 
ly character  of  their  authors,  as  to  discredit  the  writings 
of  Berosus  or  Manetho  or  Moses  on  such  grounds. 

''  Moses  wrote  in  the  interest  of  religion,  and  the  Pen- 
tateuch has  a  religious  tone  throughout."     True;  and 


PRIMEVAL   MAi^".  43 

the  same  is  true  of  the  writino-s  of  Manetho  and  Berosus. 
Of  Manetlio's  writings  we  have  but  little  besides  liis 
''  Dynasties  of  the  Kings  of  Egypt ;"  but  this  begins  with 
''the  reign  of  the  gods."  Of  the  religious  tone  of  the 
writings  of  Berosus,  the  traditions  which  he  has  pre- 
served for  us  of  the  ''  Tower  of  Tongues,"  and  "  The 
Flood,"  already  quoted,  furnish  an  illustration.  The 
cuneiform  inscriptions  of  the  Tigro-Euphrates  valley,  the 
only  writings  of  an  antiquity  approaching  tliat  of  the 
Pentateuch,  are  all  profoundly  religious  in  their  tone. 
As  a  proof  of  this,  take  a  brief  extract  from  the  celebrated 
Behistun  inscription,  as  translated  by  Oppert.  ''  And 
Darius  the  king  says  :  These  are  the  princes  which  call 
themselves  mine.  By  the  grace  of  Ormazd,  to  me  they 
made  subjection,  brought  tribute  to  me,  what  was  ordered 
by  me  unto  them,  in  the  night-time  as  well  as  in  the  day- 
time, that  they  executed.  And  Darius  the  king  says  :  In 
these  provinces  the  man  who  was  my  friend  I  cherished 
him  ;  the  man  who  was  my  enemy  I  punished  liim 
thoroughly.  By  the  grace  of  Ormazd,  in  these  lands  was 
my  law  observed  ;  and  what  was  ordered  by  me  unto 
them,  that  they  executed.  And  Darius  the  king  says  : 
Ormazd  gave  to  me  this  kingdom,  and  Ormazd  was  my 
helper  until  I  gained  this  kingdom,  and  by  the  grace  of 
Ormazd  I  possess  this  kingdom."  ("  Records  of  the 
Past,"  vol.  Y,  pp.  88,  89.) 

In  the  thoroughly  religious  tone  of  their  writings, 
Manetho,  Berosus,  Moses,  and  the  cuneiform  inscriptions 
are  all  alike,  the  only  difference  being  that  the  religion 
which  appears  in  Moses'  writings  is  a  religion  of  a  con- 
fessedly higher  type — inasmuch  as  it  recognizes  one 
God  only — than  the  Egyptian  animal  worship  of  Manetho 
or  the  Parseeism  of  Nineveh  and  Babylon.  Did  the  Pen- 
tateuch lack  this  religious  tone,  it  would  be  out  of  har- 


44  NATURE   AND   REVELATION". 

mony  with  all  other  writings  of  the  age  in  w^hich  it  claims 
to  have  been  written  ;  and  to  object  to  it  on  this  ground 
simply  exposes  the  ignorance  of  the  objector. 

In  addition  to  this,  1  would  ask  you  to  notice  the  facts  : 
(1)  That  we  have  the  original  v^ork  of  Moses  in  the 
language  in  w^iich  it  was  first  written,  as  well  as  in  several 
ancient  translations,  preserved  w^itli  religious  care  by  the 
Jews  ;  while  of  the  writings  of  Manetlio  and  Berosus  we 
have  but  fragments,  preserved  by  later  writers.  (2)  That 
the  Pentateuch  is,  in  large  measure,  a  record  of  what 
took  place  in  Moses'  day — is  contemporary  history — 
while  the  histories  of  Manetho  and  Berosus,  who  lived 
during  the  third  century  before  Christ,  are  altogether 
histories  of  what  must  have  been  to  them  the  long-passed. 
If  they  had  tradition  and  the  temple  records  to  help 
them,  so  had  Moses  tradition,  and,  as  is  inferred  from  a 
critical  examination  of  his  writings  by  our  ablest  scholars, 
certain  written  documents,  which  had  come  down  to  him 
from  an  earlier  age.  Possibly  it  is  to  these  documents 
the  Chaldean  tradition  of  the  Deluge  refers,  vdien  it  tells 
us  that  '^  the  Deity  appeared  to  Xisuthrus  (the  ]^oah  of 
Moses),  and  enjoined  him  to  write  a  history  of  the  begin- 
ning, the  procedure,  and  course  of  all  things,"  and  to 
take  measures  to  preserve  it  for  the  instruction  of  after 
ages.  (3)  If  the  writings  of  Manetho  and  Berosus  are 
confirmed  at  many  points  by  the  monuments  of  Egypt  and 
the  Tigro-Euphrates  valley,  so  are  the  writings  of  Moses,* 
and,  in  one  particular — in  the  greatest  event  in  the 
history  of   Israel   which  it  records — the   Exodus   from 


■*  The  reader  who  wishes  to  follow  up  this  subject  can  "consult 
Hengstenberg's  "Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,"  and  Rawiin- 
son's  "Egypt  and  Babylon." 


PRIMEVAL   MAN".  45 

Ef^yptiaii  bondage — the  history  of  Moses  is  confirmed  in 
a  way  in  which  no  other  ancient  history  is.  In  com- 
memoration of  that  event,  and  of  the  means  by  whicli 
the  pride  of  Egypt  was  broken  and  Israel  set  free,  a 
solemn  feast  was  instituted  —  the  Passover  —  which  is 
observed  by  the  Jews  to-day,  scattered  though  they  be 
all  over  the  world,  and  whicli  has  been  observed  by  them 
from  the  day  of  its  institution  —  a  monument  this, 
standing  forth  amid  the  ages  solitary  and  alone,  as  last- 
ing as  the  pyramids  and  more  certain  in  its  testimony  ; 
for  wliile  the  purpose  for  which  tlie  Great  Pyramid  was 
erected  is  a  matter  in  dispute  among  tlie  learned,  but 
one  interpretation  has  ever  been  given  to  the  Passover, 
the  presiding  officer  at  the  feast  to-day  repeating,  as  he 
did  three  thousand  five  hundred  vears  aa^o — "  It  is  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  Passover,  who  passed  over  the 
houses  of  the  cliildren  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  wdien  he  smote 
tlie  Egyptians,  and  delivered  our  houses."  (Exodus 
12:27.) 

In  view  of  sucli  facts  as  these,  I  ask,  How  can  we, 
with  any  show  of  reason,  accept  the  writings  of  Manetho 
and  Berosus  as  credible  and  reject  those  of  Moses  ?  I 
have  said  nothing  of  Moses'  claim  to  inspiration,  nor  do 
1  mean  on  the  present  occasion  to  advance  that  claim.  1 
wish  to  discuss  the  question  before  us  on  grounds  ad- 
mitted by  all  to  be  legitimate.  All  I  cLaim  for  Moses  is, 
that  he  shall  be  treated  fairly — treated  just  as  Manetho 
and  Berosus  are,  and  so  treated,  I  believe  his  claim  to 
credibility  can  be  more  satisfactorily  established  than 
that  of  any  other  ancient  historian  whose  writings  have 
come  down  to  us  ;  and  so,  in  the  words  of  Lenormant, 
*'  They  should,  in  sound  criticism,  form  the  basis  of  all 
history."     (''  Manual  of  Ancient  History,"  p.  1.) 


46  MATURE   A^'D    EEVELATIOX. 

§  20.  Further  Proof  of  the  Credibility  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Taking  the  Pentateuch  as  our  guide,  at  the  point  at 
which  all  other  written  history  fails  lis,  we  will  be  able 
to  trace  back  the  race  of  man  to  its  beginning.  As  we 
start  in  this  attempt,  I  will  ask  you  to  remark  that : 

(1)  At  the  point  at  which  we  start,  Moses'  history  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  all  other  credible  histories  in  the 
representation  which  it  gives  of  the  then  existing  state  of 
things.  There  are  great  civilized  nations  dwelling  in  the 
Tigro-Euphrates  and  Nile  valleys,  their  people  living 
in  walled  cities,  as  well  as  in  the  open  country,  and 
carrying  on  trade,  and  making  wars  one  with  another  ; 
that  emigration  is  going  on,  and  has  been  going  on  for 
years,  from  the  great  centres  of  population,  and  so 
Egypt  and  Chaldea  are  surrounded  by  lesser  tribes,  who, 
under  the  influence  of  their  less  favorable  environments, 
have  lost  something  of  the  civilization  they  once  pos- 
sessed ;  and  that  a  gross  idolatry  seems  to  be  supplant- 
ing the  purer  worship  of  one  God  which  had  prevailed, 
notably  in  Egypt. 

(2)  As  we  proceed  back  to  the  beginning,  with  Moses' 
writings  in  our  hands,  we  gather  up  and  incorporate  into 
a  history  which  possesses  philosophic  unity  all  the  frag- 
ments preserved  in  the  most  ancient  traditions,  such  as 
"the  Tower  of  Tongues,"  "the  Deluge,"  and  "the 
Golden  Age."  Lenormant  writes:  "The  Pentateuch 
contains  the  most  ancient  tradition  as  to  the  first  days  of 
the  human  race,  the  only  one  which  has  not  been  dis- 
figured by  the  introduction  of  fantastic  myths  of  dis- 
ordered imaori nations  run  wild.  The  chief  features  of 
that  tradition,  which  was  originally  common  to  all  man- 
kind, and  which  the  special  care  of  Providence  has  pre- 
served in  greater  purity  among  the  chosen  people  than 


PKIMEVAL    MAIT.  47 

among  other  races,  are  preserved,  though  changed,  in 
countries  distant  from  each  other,  and  whose  inhabitants 
liave  had  no  communication  for  thousands  of  years.  The 
only  clew  which  can  guide  ns  throngh  the  labyrinth  of 
these  scattered  fragments  of  tradition  is  the  Bible." 
{"  Manual  of  Ancient  History,"  p.  1.) 

§  21,   Civilization  of  Primeval  Jfan  according  to  the 

PentateucJi. 

The  condition  of  primeval  mau  is  described  by  Moses 
in  the  words — ^'  God  created  man  in  His  own  image,  in 
the  image  of  God  created  lie  him  ;  male  and  female 
created  He  them."  (Gen.  1  :  27.)  "  And  the  Lord  God 
planted  a  garden  eastward  in  Eden  ;  and  there  He  put 
the  man  whom  He  had  formed.  And  out  of  the  ground 
made  the  Lord  God  to  grow  every  tree  that  is  pleasant 
to  the  sight,  and  good  for  food.  And  the  Lord  God  took 
the  man,  and  put  liijn  into  the  garden  of  Eden  to  dress 
it  and  to  keep  it."  (Gen.  2  :  8,  9,  15.)  ''  And  Adam 
gave  names  to  all  cattle,  and  to  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and 
to  every  beast  of  the  field.  And  .  .  .  the  Lord  God  .  .  . 
brought  the  v/oman  nnto  the  man.  And  Adam  said, 
This  is  now  bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  :  she 
shall  be  called  Woman,  because  she  v/as  taken  out  of 
man.  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother, 
and  shall  cleave  unto  his  Vv^ife  :  and  they  shall  be  one 
flesh."  (Gen.  2  :  20,  22-2L)  "  And  God  blessed  them, 
and  God  said  nnto  them.  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and 
replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it  :  and  have  dominion 
over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air, 
and  over  every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon  the  earth." 
(Gen.  1  :  28.) 

The  sketch  thus  given  us  of  primeval  man  is  a  sketch 
in   outline   only,  but   it   is    complete    enough   to    place 


48  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

beyond  all  reasonable  question  tlie  fact  that  he  was  no 
savage,  just  emerging  as  to  body  and  mind  from  the  con- 
dition of  a  brute,  living  in  damp  caves,  and  feeding  npon 
the  raw  flesh  of  such  animals  as  he  was  able  to  entrap  or 
master  in  open  fight — "  the  cave  man,"  as  he  has  been 
called.  The  nearest  approach  to  such  a  man  our  world 
has  presented  is  the  Patagonian,  and  that  in  these  closing 
years  of  this  nineteenth  century.  Primeval  man,  as 
depicted  by  Moses,  is  a  being  bearing  the  image  of 
God  ;  cultivating  the  fruitful  earth  which,  in  response  to 
his  labor,  yielded  an  abundant  return  of  all  that  was  good 
for  food  ;  possessed  of  a  language  copious  enough  to  give 
name  to  every  living  thing  ;  subduing  the  earth,  and  hav- 
ing tlie  marriage  relation  established  in  all  the  sacredness 
which  belongs  to  it  among  the  most  civilized  nations  of 
our  day — a  most  significant  particular  in  Moses'  sketch, 
when  v\'e  consider  that  ^'  one  of  the  most  general  charac- 
teristics of  the  savage  is  to  despise  and  degrade  the  female 
sex."    (Malthus  ou  "  Population,"  vol.  1,  p.  39.) 

All  these  things,  I  may  be  told,  do  not  constitute 
civiHzation,  in  the  accepted  signification  of  that  word. 
An  extended  knowledge  of  the  useful  arts,  and  the  pos- 
session of  such  a  settled  svstem  of  laws  and  e^overnment 
as  enable  men  to  live  in  great  political  communities,  are 
essential  features  of  civilization.  This  is  true  of  civil- 
ization as  the  term  is  applied  to  peoples  and  nations,  and 
in  this  sense  civilization  vras  impossible  for  man  at  the 
commencement  of  his  course,  impossible  until  he  had 
multiplied  greatly  in  the  earth,  impossible  for  a  century 
or  two.  Such  a  civilization  in  its  liv^ing  germ  is  all  that 
can  possibly  be  predicated  of  primeval  man  ;  and  in  the 
particulars  which  Moses  has  given  us,  we  have  this 
civilization  in  its  living  germ,  and  that  a  civilization  of 
a  higher  type  than  that  of  Egypt,  with  her  pyramids  and 


PRIMEVAL    MAN.  49 

temples,  built  by  slaves  working  under  tlie  lasli  of  their 
taskmasters  ;  or  that  of  Rome,  with  her  triumphal 
arches  adorned  with  sculptures  of  chained  captives,  and 
her  Colosseum  erected  for  popular  shows  of  mortal  com- 
bat between  gladiators  and  wild  beasts. 

§  22.     Religion    of  Prhneval   31an   according   to    the 

Pentateuch. 

Turning  now  to  what  the  Pentateuch  tells  us  of  the 
religion  of  primeval  man,  1  will  direct  jour  attention 
to  one  passage  only — "  And  in  process  of  time  it  came 
to  pass  that  Cain  brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  an 
offering  unto  the  Lord.  And  Abel,  lie  also  brought  of 
the  firstlings  of  his  flock,  and  of  the  fat  thereof.  And 
the  Lord  had  respect  unto  Abel  and  unto  his  offering. 
But  unto  Cain  and  his  offering  he  had  not  respect." 
(Gen.  4  :  3-5.)  As  thro vvdng  light  upon  the  signifi- 
cance of  this  passage,  one  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Jews 
wrote  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  :  "  By  faith  Abel 
offered  unto  God  a  more  acceptable  sacrifice  than  Cain." 
We  have  here,  then,  Abel  by  bloody  sacrifice,  which  he 
offered  in  faith,  the  representative  of  what  is  distinctively 
styled  "  evangelical  religion  ;"  and  Cain,  by  his  offering 
the  fruit  of  the  ground,  the  representative  of  what  is  dis- 
tinctively styled  "natural  religion;"  neither  of  them 
the  religion  of  the  savage,  but  the  two  great  phases  of 
reliirious  thouMit  and  belief  common  amono;  the  most 
highly  civilized  peoples  of  our  day. 

Canon  Rawlinson,  in  the  "concluding  remarks"  of 
his  "  Relisrions  of  the  Ancient  World,"  writes  :  "  The 
historic  review  which  has  been  here  made  lends  no  sup- 
port to  the  theory  that  there  is  a  uniform  growth  and 
progress  of  religions  from  fetisliisin  to  polytheism,  from 
polytheism  to  monotheism,  and  from  monotheism  to  posi- 


50  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

tivism,  as  maintained  hj  the  followers  of  Comte.  !None 
of  the  religions  here  described  shows  any  signs  of  having 
been  developed  out  of  fetishism,  unless  it  be  the  Shaman- 
ism of  the  Etruscans.  In  most  of  them  the  monotheistic 
idea  is  most  prominent  at  the  first,  and  gradually  becomes 
obscured,  and  gives  way  before  a  polytheistic  corruption. 
In  all  there  is  one  element,  at  least,  which  appears  to  be 
traditional — viz. ,  sacrifice,  for  it  can  scarcely  have  been  by 
the  exercise  of  his  reason  that  man  came  so  generally  to 
believe  that  the  superior  j)owers,  whatever  they  were, 
would  be  pleased  by  the  violent  death  of  one  or  more  of 
their  creatures." 

'^  Altogether,  the  theory  to  which  the  facts  appear  on 
the  whole  to  point  is  the  existence  of  a  primitive  religion, 
communicated  to  man  from  without,  w^iereof  Monothe- 
ism and  expiatory  sacrifice  were  parts,  and  the  gradual 
clouding  over  of  this  primitive  revelation  everywhere, 
unless  it  were  among  the  Hebrews.  Even  among  them 
a  worship  of  Teraphim  crept  in  (Gen.  31  :  19-35), 
together  with  other  corruptions  (Josh.  2i  :  11)  ;  and 
the  terrors  of  Sinai  were  needed  to  clear  away  poly- 
theistic accretions.  Elsewhere  degeneration  had  free 
play.  .  .  .  The  cloud  wa^  darker  and  thicker  in  some 
places  than  in  others.  There  were,  perhaps,  races  with 
whom  the  whole  of  the  past  became  a  tabula  rasa,  and  all 
traditional  knowledge  being  lost,  religion  was  evolved 
afresh  out  of  the  inner  consciousness.  There  were  others 
which  lost  a  portion,  without  losing  the  whole  of  their 
inherited  knowledge.  There  were  others  again  who  lost 
scarcely  anything,  but  hid  up  the  truth  in  mystic  lan- 
guage and  strange  symbolism.  The  only  theory  which  ac- 
counts for  all  the  facts — for  the  unity  as  well  as  the  diver- 
sity of  ancient  religions — is  that  of  a  primeval  revela- 
tion,   variously    corrupted    through  the    manifold   and 


PRI.MEYAL    ma:??".  51 

multiform  deterioration  of  human  nature  in  different  races 
and  places."     (Humboldt  Library,  No.  62,  p.  92.) 

§  23.  Conclusions. 

In  view  of  all  tlie  facts  of  the  case — and  the  reader 
may  rest  assured  that  no  important  fact  bearing  upon  the 
question  at  issue  has  been  intentionally  omitted — the 
conclusion  to  wliich  we  come  is,  that  no  sufficient  reason, 
either  scientific  or  historical,  has  as  yet  been  given  for 
abandoning  what  has  been  hitherto  the  almost  universal 
faith,  not  of  Christian  peoples  alone,  but  of  the  more  en- 
lightened heathen  also,  as  manifested  in  their  traditions 
— that  man  %oas  created  some  six  or  seven  thousand 
years  ago^  and  that  he  coinmenced  his  course  as  a  civil- 
ized heing^  helieving  in  the  one  only  living  and  true  God. 


111. 

EVOLUTION.* 

§  24.    Changes  in  Inorganic  Nature, 

Our  world  is  all  the  time  undergoing  change,  in  some 
part   or  other,   through  the  agency  of   heat   and   frost, 
storms   of   wind   and    rain,   river   currents   and    floods, 
volcanoes  and  earthquakes,  gradual  elevations  or  depres- 
sions of  large  districts  of  country,  and  the  operation  of 
coral  polyps  in  building  up  reefs,  and  stone-boring  mol- 
liisks  and  ocean  waves  in  tearing  these  reefs  to  pieces 
again.     And  judging  from  appearances,  as  well   as  by 
reasoning  upon  the  nature  of  the  agencies  themselves, 
these  changes  have  been  going  on  for  ages,  and  must 
have  been  far  more  extensive  in  early  times  than  in  our 
day.     ^^  volcanic  and  earthquake  agency,  a  little  more 
than  a  year  ago,  mountains  were  thrown  up,  and  a  large 
district  of  level  country  simk'in  the  ocean  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  Island  of   Sumatra.     On  our  own  coast, 
at  Nag's  Head,  the  winds  have  piled  up  the  sand-hill 
from  which  the  place  takes  its  name,  where  was  an  inlet 
from  the  ocean  to  the  Sound  less  than  a  century  ago. 
These  are  instances  of  this  class  of  changes  of  recent  oc- 
currences.    The  only  general  truth,  or  law,  respecting 
them  demanding  attention  in  the  present  discussion  is 
that  from  the  very  nature  of  the  agencies  by  which  they 

*  The  substance  of  this  paper  was  originally  delivered  as  two 
lectures,  in  Norfolk,  Ya.,  during  October,  18o4,  and  subsequently 
published  in  pamphlet  form. 


EVOLUTION".  53 

are  effected  these  changes  must  be  confined  to  inorganic 
nature.  It  is  the  world,  in  the  narrower  sense  of  the 
word  alone,  which  can  be  directly  affected  by  them. 

The  series  of  changes  of  tliis  kind  which  our  world  is 
believed  to  have  undergone,  while  they  constitute  a  de- 
velopment of  that  world — an  evolution,  in  the  etymolog- 
ical sense  of  the  word,  and  are  sometimes  spoken  of  as 
cosmical  evolution,  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  evolu- 
tion in  the  sense  in  v/hich  Darwin  uses  the  word — '^  de- 
scent with  modifications" — they  are  not  embraced  in  the 
evolution  1  propose  to  discuss  in  the  present  paper. 

§  25.    Olianges  winch  Constitute  Growth. 

By  a  series  of  changes  and  variations,  the  acorn  develops 
into  an  oak,  the  egg  into  a  full-grown  fowl.  The  mature 
being — the  oak — is  very  unlike  the  organism  from  which 
it  sprung  ;  and  yet  no  one  who  has  watched  this  growth- 
development  can  doubt  for  a  moment  the  identity  of 
the  oak  with  the  acorn.  In  some  instances  the  variations 
which  constitute  growth -development  are  very  great  and 
very  remarkable — e.g.^  the  silk-worm  appears  at  first  as 
a  small  oval  Qgg.  This  hatches,  as  we  say,  and  instead 
of  the  Qgg  we  have  a  naked  green  caterpillar,  with  the 
regular  perpendicular  insect  mouth,  and  feeding  npon 
leaves.  When  this  caterpillar  has  attained  its  growth, 
it  fashions  for  itself  a  curious  case  called  a  cocoon,  and 
enclosing  itself  therein,  is  transformed  into  a  chrysalis  ; 
and  then,  after  remaining  for  a  season  in  a  dormant  state, 
it  comes  forth  a  winged  moth,  with  the  structure  of  its 
mouth  so  changed  that  it  can  no  longer  feed  upon  leaves 
as  it  once  did,  but  must  have  liquid  food,  such  as  honey  ; 
and  famished  with  perfect  wings,  its  companionship  is 
no  longer  v\^ith  worms,  but  with  birds  of  the  air.  No 
less  remarkable  are  the  variations  in  the  growth-des^elop- 


54  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

Tnent  of  tlie  frog.  It  is  first  known  to  lis  as  an  egg. 
This  hatches  into  a  tadpole,  an  animal  destitute  of  limbs, 
and  propelling  itself  through  the  water,  and  breathing 
through  gills,  as  fishes  do.  After  a  season  its  gills  disap  • 
pear,  its  tail  is  absorbed,  articulate  limbs  grow,  aad  it 
becomes  a  land-animal,  breathing  the  air,  and  incapable 
of  livino^  in  the  water  as  it  once  did. 

Still  more  remarkable,  in  some  particulars  at  the  least, 
are  the  changes  which  mark  the  growth-development  of 
certain  parasites.  Of  the  common  tape-worm.  Dr.  An- 
drew Wilson,  in  his  "  Facts  and  Fictions  of  Zoology," 
tells  us  that  "  it  begins  life  as  a  minute  bodj-,  set  free 
from  its  coverings  and  investments,  and  provided  with  a 
special  boring  apparatus,  consisting  of  six  hooks.  This 
little  creature  will  perish  unless  it  can  gain  access  to  the 
body  of  some  warm-blooded  quadruped  ;  and  the  pig 
accordingly  appears  on  the  scene  as  the  most  convenient 
host  for  the  reception  of  the  little  embryo.  But  within 
the  body  of  the  pig  there  is  not  the  slightest  possibility 
of  the  little  embryo  becoming  a  tape- worm.  The  pig  has 
merely  to  perform  the  part  of  an  unconscious  nurse,  and 
to  prepare  its  guest  for  a  yet  higher  stage  of  existence. 
Being  swallowed  by  the  pig,'  the  young  parasite  bores 
its  way  through  tlie  tissues  from  the  digestive  system  to 
the  muscles  of  the  animal,  and  there  develops  around  its 
body  a  kind  of  bag  or  sack.  In  this  state  it  represents 
the  cystic  worm  of  old  writers  ;  and  occasionally  it  may 
prefer  the  liver,  brain,  or  even  tlie  eye  of  its  first  host  to 
the  muscles  in  which  it  usually  resides.  Here,  however, 
it  can  attain  no  further  development.  If  the  pig  dies  a 
natural  death  there  can  be  no  possibility  of  the  tape-worm 
stage,  being  evolved  ;  but  if,  as  is  most  likely,  the  pig 
suffers  death  at  the  butcher's  hands,  the  little  cystic 
worms  may  be  bought  by  mankind  at  large  along  with 


EVOLUTIOI!?".  55 

the  pork  in  which  they  are  contLiined.  Such  persons  as 
partake  of  this  comestible  in  an  imperfectly  cooked  con- 
dition thereby  quahfy  themselves  for  becoming  the  hosts 
of  tape- worms,  since,  w^ien  a  cystic  w^orm  from  the 
muscle  of  the  pig  is  introduced  into  the  human  stomach, 
the  little  bladder  or  sack  which  the  worm  possesses  drops 
off,  and  the  minute  liead  of  the  worm  becomes  attached 
to  the  living  membrane  of  the  digestive  system.  Once 
fixed  in  this  position,  the  circle  of  development  may  be 
said  to  be  complete.  A  process  of  budding  sets  in,  and 
joint  after  joint  is  produced,  until  the  adult  tape-worm, 
measuring,  it  may  be,  many  feet  in  length,  is  developed, 
while  each  egg  of  this  full-grown  being,  if  surrounded 
with  the  requisite  conditions,  and  if  provided  with  a  pig- 
liost  to  begin  with,  wnll  repeat  the  marvellous  and  compli- 
cated life-history  of  its  parent."  ("  Humboldt  Library," 
No.  29,  p.  46.) 

In  the  case  of  man,  the  variations  are  not  near  so  great 
as  in  the  cases  just  cited  ;  yet  in  the  earlier  stages  of 
his  growth-development — in  his  embryonic  condition — 
he  presents  successive  forms  in  which  an  active  imagina- 
tion can  discover  some  resemblance  to  the  fish,  the  reptile, 
and  the  mammalian  quadruped  ;  and  even  after  birth, 
when  he  first  essays  locomotion,  it  is  usually  after  the 
manner  of  a  quadruped. 

It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  at  the  starting-point 
of  their  existence  all  plants  and  animals  are  alike.  As  a 
late  writer  puts  it,  ''  The  apple  which  fell  in  Newton's 
garden,  Newton's  dog  Diamond,  and  Newton  himself 
began  life  at  the  same  point."  This  is  true  in  a  very 
limited  sense  only.  The  bodies  of  the  apple,  the  dog, 
and  the  man  are  all  cellular  structures  ;  and  in  every  ag- 
gregation of  cellules  there  must  be  a  first  cellule  around 
which  the  aggregation  takes  place  ;  and  it  may  be,  and, 


56'  :n"ature  and  revelatio^^. 

in  fact,  IS  true,  that  with  our  best  microscopes  we  have 
not  yet  been  able  to  discover  any  structural  difference  in 
these  first  cellules  of  the  apple,  the  dog,  and  the  man. 
But  the  fact  that  the  apple-cellule  always  develops  into 
an  apple,  the  dog-cellule  into  a  dog,  and  the  man-cellule 
into  a  man,  furnishes  irrefragable  proof  that  there  is  a 
radical  difference  in  these  cellules,  either  in  structure  or 
in  the  nature  of  the  vitality  with  which  they  are  endowed, 
though  our  microscopes  may  not  be  able  to  discover  it 

This  whole  class  of  changes  takes  place  under  the  law 
of  variation  of  growth-development.  Co-ordinate  with 
this  law,  we  find  another  law  limiting  the  range  of  these 
variations. 

In  the  case  of  the  acorn,  under  the  law  of  variation,  it 
develops  into  the  mature  oak,  and  then  the  operation 
of  the  law,  as  a  lav/  of  life,  ceases.  The  oak  dies,  and 
by  chemical  agencies  is  resolved  into  its  original  elements. 
Its  material  falls  back  from  its  condition  of  organic  mat- 
ter to  that  of  inorganic  matter  again.  But  before  its 
death  the  mature  oak  had  produced  its  acorns,  and  from 
these  acorns  other  oaks  grow  just  as  the  first  oak  did  ; 
and  so  this  whole  series  of  changes  is  repeated  time  after 
time.  The  life-story  of  the  silk-worm,  the  fros:,  man, 
and  even  the  parasitic  tape-v/orm  in  this  particular  is 
the  same  with  that  of  tlie  oak. 

The  law  of  limitation  in  the  case  of  growth-develop- 
ment may  be  thus  stated  :  Variation^  extreme  as  it  may 
he,  never  extends  Jjeyond  the  life  of  the  individual  plant 
or  animal  hi  lohicJi  it  occurs.  Grow^th-development 
runs  a  certain  deiinite  round,  and  then  we  are  brought 
back  to  the  same  starting-point  again.  J^J  growth-de- 
velopment an  oak  will  never  become  anything  but  an 
oak,  a  silk-worm  will  never  become  anything  but  a  silk- 
worm to  the  end  of  time. 


EVOLUTIOI^.  57 

I  ask  the  reader  to  notice  this  conchision  at  which  we 
have  arrived,  as  many  writers,  ignorini^this  law  of  limita- 
tion— a  lavv'  as  fixed  and  well  determined  as  the  law  of 
variation  is — appeal  to  these  variations  of  growth-develop- 
ment in  support  of  evolution,  an  hypothesis  which  pos- 
tulates, as  we  shall  see,  the  transformation  of  an  oak, 
not  immediately,  but  by  successive  variations,  into  a  silk- 
worm, a  silk- worm  into  a  frog,  and  a  frog  into  a  man/- 


*  In  a  brief  review  of  this  paper,  as  originally  published,  Dr. 
Woodrow  writes:  ."We  have  recently  often  heard  that  evolution 
teaches  that  a  cow  is  the  descendant  of  the  cabbage,  and  the  oyster 
of  the  mucous  okra,  and  the  like  ;  but  we  certainly  did  not  expect 
such  caricatures  to  be  equalled  and  even  surpassed  by  what  an  ex- 
professor  of  natural  science  designed  to  be  an  honest  statement  of 
the  truth.  No  evolutionist  believes  anything  at  all  like  that  which 
is  here  said  to  be  evolution."    {Southern  Preshyierian,  May  7th,  188'5,) 

"If  the  doctrine  of  evolution  be  true,  it  follows  that,  however 
diverse  the  different  groups  of  animals  and  of  plants  may  be,  they 
must  all,  at  one  time  or  other,  have  been  connected  by  gradational 
forms  ;  so  that  from  the  highest  animals,  whatever  they  may  be, 
down  to  the  lov/cst  speck  of  protoplasmic  matter  in  which  life  can  be 
manifested,  a  series  of  gradations,  leading  from  one  end  of  the  series 
to  the  other,  either  exists  or  has  existed.  Undoubtedly  that  is  a 
necessary  postula'e  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution."  (Huxley's  "New 
York  Lectures  on  Evolution,"  Lecture  II.) 

I  would  ask  the  reader  also  to  notice  Darwin's  probable  genealogy 
for  man,  as  quoted  in  §  28.  The  frog  may  seem  to  Dr.  Woodrow  a 
very  disreputable  ancestor  ;  but  is  it  any  more  so  than  Darwin's 
sea-squirt?  Evolutionists  cling  most  persistently  to  a  statement  of 
their  hypothesis  in  general  terms— e.  g.,  "The  transformation  by  suc- 
cessive differentiations  of  the  homogeneous  into  the  heterogeneous" 
— "descent  with  modifications."  Charles  Darwin  is  the  only  evolu- 
tionist, so  far  as  I  know,  that  has  ventured  to  drop  these  generalities 
and  state  the  hypothesis  in  terms  which  will  make  its  meaning  plain 
to  the  common  reader.  It  may  be  true  that  in  the  actaal  process  of 
evolution  the  cabbage  may  not  have  been  in  the  particular  line  of 
ancestry  of  the  cow.  See  the  section  on  "  Divergence  in  Character," 
in  Chapter  IV.  of  Darwin's  "  Origin  of  Species.' '  It  may  have  been  the 
nettle,  as  that  has  sharp  thorns— a  sort  of  vegetable  horns— or  possibly 


58  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

Growth-development  moves  in  a  circle,  and  has  well 
been  styled,  as  to  its  variations,  a  system  of  revolution, 
and  not  evolution. 

§  26.  Changes  which  Last  heyond  the  Life  of  the 

Individual. 

There  is  a  large  class  of  variations  in  plants  and  animals 
which  accompany  changes  of  climate,  domestication,  and 
cultivation,  which  under  the  operation  of  "  the  law  of 
heredity"  are  often  perpetuated  beyond  the  limits  of  a 
single  life. 

As  an  instance  of  variation  through  change  of  climate, 
take  the  case  of  our  Indian  corn,  or  maize.  In  Virginia 
it  growls  to  the  average  height  of  ten  feet,  and  requires 
five  or  six  months  to  mature  its  grain.  Wlien  acclimated 
in  Vermont  or  Canada  it  grows  to  but  half  that  height, 
and  matures  its  grain  in  half  the  time  required  in 
Virginia.  So  the  sweet  potato  {Convolvulus  hatatus), 
which  in  its  native  South  blooms  freely,  producing 
regular  seed,  by  which  it  can  be  propagated  as  well  as 
by  its  tubers,  has  been  acclimated  as  far  nortJi  as  New 
Jersey  ;  but  there  it  never  blooms,  and  has  to  be  prop- 
agated by  its  tubers  alone.     ♦ 

Domestication  and  cultivation  have  wrought  such  great 
changes  in  many  plants,  that  it  is  with  difficulty  we  rec- 
ognize the  wild  stock  in  the  improved  variety — e.g.,  the 
crab  apple  in  the  Albemarle  pippin,  the  dog  rose  in 
the  cloth  of  gold.  As  the  result  of  domestication  and 
careful  breeding,  in  the  case  of  the  horse  we  have  the 
Flemish  dray  horse  and  the  Shetland  pony  ;  and  in  the 
case  of  the  dog,  the  Saint  Bernard  and  the  Skye  terrier. 

the  mullein,  wlaich  lias  wooll}' leaves  ;  but  there  must  have  been  some 
plant  which  had  reached  the  same  stage  of  differentiation  with  the 
cabbage  that  did  occupy  a  place  in  the  ancestry  of  the  cow. 


EVOLUTION.  59 

Yariations  of  this  kind,  as  they  appear  in  our  ''  highly 
improved  varieties,"  have  usually  been  effected  little  by 
little.  A  slight  improvement  is  wrought  in  one  genera- 
tion and  perpetuated  by  the  law  of  heredity  ;  it  serves 
as  the  starting-point  for  further  improvement  in  the 
succeeding  generation,  and  so  the  highly  improved 
variety  secured  by  continual  cultivation  or  breeding  will 
present  an  accumulation  of  many  variations,  each  in- 
considerable in  itself,  but  in  the  aggregate  constituting 
a  great  change. 

The  capacity  for  variation  in  this  way,  while  very 
great  in  some  species  of  pUxnts  and  animals,  notably  in 
those  which  man  has  usually  carried  with  him  in  his  mi- 
grations, in  others  seems  to  be  almost  entirely  wanting. 
The  Kentucky  blue-grass  has  been  carefully  cultivated 
for  many  years  with  no  appreciable  change.  The 
elephant  has  been  domesticated  in  the  East  for  many 
centuries,  and  yet  naturalists  tell  us  that  no  improved 
variety  of  the  elephant  has  been  secured. 

Such  is  the  law  of  variation  governing  this  class  of 
changes — changes  which  by  the  operation  of  heredity  are 
perpetuated  beyond  the  limits  of  a  single  life,  and  which 
on  this  account  would  seem  fitted  for  the  purposes  of 
evolution.  Are  there  any  laws  of  limitation  here,  as  in 
the  case  of  variations  of  growth-development  ?  I  answer, 
Yes. 

1.  Co-ordinate  with  the  law  of  heredity  tending  to  the 
perpetuation  of  varieties  once  secured  is  the  law  of  de- 
generation through  neglect — the  laic  of  reversion  to  type, 
as  it  is  more  frequently  called.  All  skilful  stock-raisers 
know  that  any  highly  improved  variety  can  be  maintained 
only  by  the  greatest  care  and  the  most  particular  atten- 
tion to  certain  rules  of  breeding  which  experience  has 
taught  them. 


60  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

Professor  Driimmond  writes:  *'If  we  neglect  a  gar- 
den plant,  then  a  natural  principle  of  deterioration  comes 
in  and  changes  it  into  a  worse  plant  ;  or,  if  we  neglect 
almost  any  of  the  domestic  animals,  they  will  rapidly  re- 
vert to  wild  and  worthless  forms  again.  If  a  man  neglects 
himself  for  a  few  years  he  will  degenerate  into  a  wild 
and  bestial  savage,  like  the  dehumanized  men  who  are 
discovered  sometimes  upon  desert  islands.  The  law  of 
reversion  to  type  runs  through  all  creation. "  ("  Xatural 
Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,"  p.  99.) 

2.  Co-ordinate  with  the  law  of  variation  loe  have  heen 
considering  is  a  law  of  limitation^  confining  this  varia- 
tion loithin  the  houndary  lines  of  sjjecies,  "  the  law  of 
the  permanence  of  species,^''  as  it  is  called.  No  two 
flowers  have  varied  more  under  cultivation  than  the  rose 
and  the  pelargonium  ;  yet  the  rose  has  always  con- 
tinued a  rose,  and  the  pelargonium  a  pelargonium.  No 
two  domestic  animals  have  undergone  greater  changes 
by  careful  breeding  than  the  horse  and  the  dog  ;  yet  the 
horse  has  always  continued  a  horse,  and  the  dog  a  dog. 

The  question  respecting  '^  the  permanence  of  species" 
is  not  a  new  question  in  the  scientific  world.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  a  question  which  has  engaged  the  attention 
of  naturalists  from  a  very  early  date,  and  has  been  as 
carefully  examined  and  as  thoroughly  discussed  as  any 
question  in  the  whole  range  of  natural  science.  Tliree 
times  in  the  course  of  the  present  century  has  it  been 
under  discussion  :  in  the  early  part  of  the  century,  in 
connection  with  the  introduction  of  the  jiatural  system 
of  classification  in  natural  history  ;  later  on,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  question  of  the  unity  of  the  human  race, 
as  that  question  was  involved  in  the  slavery  controversy  ; 
and  still  more  recently  in  connection  v/ith  the  subject 
we  are  now  examining — evolution. 


EVOLUTION.  61 

The  most  thorough  examination  of  this  question  on 
purely  scientific  grounds  that  I  know  of  is  tliat  of  Dr. 
Bachman,  Professor  of  Natural  History  in  the  College 
of  Charleston,  S.  C.  And  it  may  be  of  interest  to  the 
reader  to  know  that  Dr.  Bachman  was  eno-ao'ed  in  mak- 
ing  his  examination  at  the  same  time  Darwin  was  prepar- 
ing his  "  Origin  of  Species."  As  exhibiting  the  thorough- 
ness of  his  examination,  Dr.  Bachman  tells  us  :  "A 
visit  to  Europe  afforded  us  an  opportunity  of  carrying 
with  us  American  specimens  of  plants,  birds,  and  quad- 
rupeds of  all  species,  either  identical  with  or  closely 
allied  to  those  of  the  Eastern  Continent.  The  cabinets 
of  individuals,  the  public  museums,  and  the  zoological 
collections  of  living  animals  were  freely  opened  to  us, 
and  the  best  naturalists  of  Europe  and  the  world  united 
with  us  for  many  months  in  patient,  minute,  and  varied 
examinations  and  comparisons.  These  were  conducted 
in  London,  Edinburgh,  Berlin,  Dresden,  and  at  the  As- 
sociation of  European  naturalists  that  met  in  Germany." 
("  Unity  of  the  Human  Race,"  p.  11.)  The  result  of 
this  protracted  and  careful  study  on  the  mind  of  Dr. 
Bachman  was  a  firm  conviction  that  all  natural  species 
of  plants  and  animals  are  permanent ;  that,  vary  widely 
as  plants  and  animals  may,  the  variation  never  passes  the 
boundary  line  of  natural  species. 

1  shall  not  attempt  to  give  even  a  brief  synopsis  of  this 
discussion  here— time  forbids  ;  but  instead  thereof  I 
will  ask  your  attention  to  the  recently  expressed  conclu- 
sions of  several  of  the  most  eminent  scientists  of  the  day 
— men  who  are  entitled,  if  any  are,  to  express  an  opinion 
on  the  subject. 

Prof essor  Huxley  writes  :  ''  After  much  consideration, 
and  assuredly  with  no  bias  against  Mr.  Darwin's  views, 
it  is  our  clear  conviction  that,  as  the  evidence  now  stands, 


62  NATURE   AKD   REYELATIOK. 

it  is  not  absolutely  proven  that  a  group  of  animals  hav- 
ing all  the  characters  exhibited  bj  species  in  nature  has 
ever  been  originated  by  selection,  whether  artificial  or 
natural"     (''  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  295.) 

Professor  De  Quatrefages  writes:  ''I  might  here 
accumulate  a  mass  of  analogous  facts  and  details,  but 
over  them  all  would  appear  a  general  fact  including 
them,  wdiicli  is  the  expression  of  a  law  ;  and  here  is  the 
fact.  Notwithstanding  observations  reaching  back  for 
thousands  of  years,  and  made  on  hundreds  of  species,  we 
do  not  yet  know  a  single  example  of  intermediate  species 
obtained  by  the  crossing  of  animals  belonging  to  different 
species."     (''  Natural  History  of  Man.") 

Professor  L.  Agassiz  writes  :  "  Breeds  {i.e.,  varieties) 
among  animals  are  the  work  of  man  ;  species  were  created 
by  God."     ("Methods  of  Study  in  Natural  History," 

p.  147.) 

The  Duke  of  Argyll,  in  his  "  Primeval  Man,"  recently 
republished  in  this  country,  writes  :  "  Some  varieties  of 
form  are  effected  in  the  case  of  a  few  animals  by  domes- 
tication and  by  constant  care  in  the  selection  of  peculiar- 
ities transmissible  to  the  young  ;  but  these  variations 
are  all  within  certain  limits^;  and  wherever  human  care 
relaxes  or  is  abandoned,  the  old  forms  return  and  the 
selected  characters  disappear.  The  founding  of  new 
forms  by  the  union  of  different  species,  even  when  stand- 
ing in  close  natural  relation  to  each  other,  is  absolutely 
forbidden  by  the  sentence  of  sterility  which  Nature  pro- 
nounces and  enforces  upon  all  hybrid  offspring.  And 
so  it  results  tliat  man  has  never  seen  the  origin  of  any 
species.  Creation  by  birth  is  the  only  kind  of  creation 
he  has  ever  seen  ;  and  from  this  kind  of  creation  he  has 
never  seen  a  new  species  come."  ("  Primeval  Man," 
pp.  39,  40.) 


EVOLUTION.  63 

Even  Darwin  virtually  concedes  tlie  permanence  of 
natural  species  when  he  writes  :  "I  doubt  whether  any 
case  of  a  perfectly  fertile  hybrid  animal  can  be  con- 
sidered as  thoroughly  well  authenticated."  ("  Origin  of 
Species,"  p.   23S.) 

Tlie  difficulty  of  settling  beyond  all  controversy  the 
question  under  consideration  arises  mainly  from  two 
sources — viz. :  (1)  the  confounding  of  artificial  and 
natural  species.  The  law  concerns  natural  species  alone. 
Artificial  species,  erected  by  naturalists  for  convenience 
of  classification,  are  not  always  coterminous  with  nat- 
ural species — e.g.^  some  naturalists  make  four  artificial 
species  of  the  one  natural  species  of  dog ;  and  (2)  the 
fact  that  the  boundary  line  of  many  comparatively  un- 
known natural  species  of  plants  and  animais  has  been,  as 
yet,  but  provisionally  determined.  Bat  if  the  jadgment 
in  matters  of  fact  of  such  men  as  Bachman,  and  Huxley, 
and  De  Quatrefages,  and  Agassiz,  and  the  Dnke  of 
Argyll  is  to  be  trusted,  and  science  is  to  embody  facts 
and  not  fancies,  I  think  it  may  be  fairly  claimed  that,  in 
the  present  state  of  our  knowledge,  we  are  bound  to 
consider  the  law  of  the  permanence  of  natural  species  as 
an  established  law,  and  in  all  our  reasoning  to  treat  it 
as  such, 

§  27.  Evolution  as  held  hj  Herlert  Spencer. 

Evolution  is  defined  by  Herbert  Spencer  as  ''  the 
transformation  of  the  honiogeneons,  through  successive 
differentiations,  into  the  heterogeneous.^''  ('^  First  Prin- 
ciples," p.  14:8.)  In  this,  its  widest  range,  evolution  is 
held  by  a  few  only. 

In  the  words  of  Principal  Dawson,  it  is  a  hypothesis 
'*  which  solves  the  question  of  human  origin  by  assuming 
that  human  nature  exists  potentially  in  mere  inorganic 


64  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

matter,  and  that  a  chain  of  spontaneous  derivation  con- 
nects incandescent  molecules  or  star  dust  vrith  the  world, 
and  with  man  himself."  ('^The  Earth  and  Man," 
p.  31G.) 

Of  evolution  in  this  form  Professor  Tyndali  writes  : 
"  The  question  concerning  the  origin  of  life  is,  whether 
it  is  due  to  a  certain  fiat — '  Let  life  be  ' — or  to  a  process 
of  evolution  ?  Was  it  potentially  in  matter  at  the  begin- 
ning, or  was  it  inserted  at  a  later  period  ?  However 
the  conviction  here  or  there  may  be  influenced,  the  proc- 
ess must  be  slow  which  commends  this  hypothesis  of 
natural  evolution  to  the  public  mind.  For  what  are  the 
core  and  essence  of  this  hypothesis  ?  Strip  it  naked, 
and  you  stand  face  to  face  with  the  notion,  that  not  alone 
the  more  ignoble  forms  of  animalcular  and  animal  life, 
not  alone  the  nobler  forms  of  horse  and  lion,  not  alone 
the  wonderful  and  exquisite  mechainsin  of  the  human 
body,  but  the  human  mind  itself — emotion,  intellect,  will, 
and  all  their  phenomxcna — were  once  latent  in  a  fiery 
cloud.  Surely,  the  mere  statement  of  such  a  notion  is 
more  than  a  refutation.  1  do  not  think  that  any  holder 
of  this  evolution  hypothesis  would  say  that  1  overstate 
it  or  overstrain  it  in  any  way.  I  merely  strip  it  of  all 
vagueness,  and  bring  before  you  unclothed  and  unvar- 
nished the  notion  by  which  it  must  stand  or  fall.  Surely, 
these  notions  represent  an  absurdity  too  monstrous  to  be 
entertained  by  any  sane  mind."  (London  AthcncBum^ 
September  4th,  1870.) 

Why  is  it  that  Professor  Tyndali — and  in  this  the  great 
body  of  scientists  agree  with  him — rejects  evolution  in 
this  form  so  emphatically  ?  1  answer,  because  it  is  ir- 
reconcilable with  one  of  the  best-ascertained  laws  of  biol- 
ogy, or  the  science  of  life. 

For  a  long  time  two  op])Ositc  theories  respecting  the 


EVOLUTION".  05 

origin  of  life  divided  the  scientific  world  :  one,  that  mat- 
ter can  of  itself  generate  life  ;  the  other,  that  life  can 
come  only  from  pre-existing  life.  This  subject,  often 
discussed  before,  in  the  last  few  years  has  been  carefully 
re-examined  by  some  of  our  most  eminent  scientific 
experimenters  in  connection  with  the  discussion  of  e\^olu- 
tion,  m  part,  but  more  especially  in  connection  with  the 
more  practical  question  of  the  nature  and  propagation  of 
certain  diseases  in  plants  and  animals — <?.^.,  the  diseases 
which,  a  few  years  ago,  attacked  the  vine  and  the  silk- 
worm in  France,  and  for  a  time  threatened  their  de- 
struction. 

The  result  of  this  careful  re-examination  is  stated  by 
Professor  Druramond  in  the 'words  :  *' A  decided  and 
authoritative  conclusion  has  now  taken  place  in  science. 
So  far  as  science  can  settle  anything,  this  question  is 
settled.  The  attempt  to  get  the  living  out  of  the  dead 
has  failed.  Spontaneous  generation  has  to  be  given  up. 
And  it  is  now  recognized  on  every  hand  that  life  can 
come  only  from  the  touch  of  life."  {^'  Natural  Law  in 
the  Spiritual  World,"  p.  63.)  And  in  confirmation  of 
this  statement  Drummond  quotes  : 

Tyndall. — ''  I  affirm  that  no  shred  of  trustworthy  ex- 
perimental testimony  exists  to  prove  that  life,  in  our 
day,  has  ever  appeared  independently  of  antecedent 
life." 

Stirling. — '^  We  are  in  the  presence  of  the  one  incom- 
municable gulf — the  gulf  of  all  gulfs — the  gulf  which 
Mr.  Huxley's  protoplasm  is  as  pov/erless  to  efface  as  any 
other  material  expedient  that  has  ever  been  suggested 
since  the  eyes  of  men  first  looked  into  it — the  mighty 
gulf  between  death  and  life." 

Huxley. — ^'  The  present  state  of  knowledge  furnishes 
us  with  no  link  between  the  living  and  the  non-living." 


66  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

Yirchow. — ''Who  ever  recalls  to  mind  tlie  lamentable 
failure  of  all  the  attempts  made  very  recently  to  discover 
a  decided  support  ioviXiQ  generatio  ceqiiivoca  in  the  lower 
forms  of  transition  from  the  inorganic  to  the  organic 
world,  will  feel  it  doubly  serious  to  demand  that  this 
theory,  so  utterly  discredited,  should  be  in  any  way  ac- 
cepted as  the  basis  of  all  our  views  of  life." 

"  All  really  scientific  experience  tells  us  that  life  can 
be  produced  from  a  living  antecedent  only." 

On  such  ground  as  this  true  science  demands  that 
if  we  adopt  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  at  all,  its  work 
must  beffin  with  the  existence  of  life  in  the  world — it 
can  never  bridge  over  the  gulf  which  separates  the  living 
from  the  non-living. 

§  2S.  Evolution  as  held  ly  Charles  Darwin. 

Darwin  excludes  the  inorganic  world  from  the  range 
of  the  evolution  which  he  contends  for  by  the  terms  of 
his  definition — viz. :  "  descent  with  modifications. ' '  De- 
scent in  the  sense  in  which  he  uses  the  word  is  "  a  pro- 
ceeding from  a  progenitor,  birth"  (Webster),  and  so 
implies  the  previous  existence  of  life.  He  doubtless 
believed  all  that  geology  teaches  respecting  the  changes 
our  earth  has  undergone  in  the  past,  but  aware  of  the  fact 
that  an  impassable  gulf  separated  between  the  living  and 
the  non-Uving— impassable  in  so  far  as  "  natural  selec- 
tion," the  immediate  agent  in  evolution,  according  to  his 
hypothesis,  is  concerned,  he  avoids  all  difficulties  hence 
arising  by  starting  with  certain  "primordial  living 
beings,"  three  or  four  at  the  most — possibly  only  one — 
whose  origin  he  does  not  attempt  to  account  for,  and  de- 
rives all  other  living  beings,  both  plants  and  animals, 
therefrom  by  evolution. 

His  doctrine,  stated  in  his  own  words,  is  :  "  Man  is  de- 


EVOLUTION.  67 

scended  from  a  hairy  quadruped,  furnished  with  a  tail  and 
pointed  ears,  probably  arboreal  in  its  habits,  and  an  in- 
habitant of  the  Old  World.  This  creature,  if  its  whole 
structure  had  been  examined  by  a  naturalist,  would  have 
been  classed  among  the  quadrumana,  as  surely  as  would 
the  common  and  more  ancient  of  the  New  World  mon- 
keys. The  quadrumana  and  all  the  higher  mammals  are 
probably  derived  from  an  ancient  marsupial  animal" — 
the  marsupial  most  common  in  Virginia  is  the  opos- 
sum— '^  and  this  through  a  long  line  of  diversified  forms, 
either  from  some  reptile-like  or  some  amphibian-like 
creature,  and  this  again  from  some  fish-like  animal.  In 
the  dim  obscurity  of  the  past  we  can  see  that  the  pro- 
genitor of  all  the  vertebrates  must  have  been  an  aquatic 
animal,  provided  with  branchia" — i.e.^  gills — ''  with  the 
two  sexes  united  in  the  same  individual,  and  with  the  most 
important  organs  of  the  body,  such  as  the  brain  and 
heart,  imperfectly  developed.  This  animal  seems  to 
have  been  more  like  the  larvse  of  our  existing  ascidians" 
— sea-squirts,  as  they  are  commonly  called — ''than  any 
other  known  form. "    (''  Descent  of  Man,"  vol.  2,  p.  372.) 

As  Darwin  limits  the  ranoje  of  evolution  in  one  direc- 
tion  by  excluding  inorganic  nature— all  that  preceded 
the  existence  of  life  in  the  world — so  others,  of  eminent 
attainments  in  science,  limit  its  range  in  the  opposite 
direction,  and  exclude  the  origin  of  man  from  its  phe- 
nomena. 

If  the  conclusion  reached  in  our  examination  of  the 
question  respecting  primeval  man  be  accepted — viz., 
*'  That  man  commenced  his  course  as  a  civilized  being, 
believing  in  the  one  only  living  and  true  God  "  (§  23),  it 
is  conceded  on  all  hands  that  he  cannot  be  the  product  of 
evolution  from  a  brute. 

Professor  De  Quatrcfages,  at  the  close  of  a  lengthened 


68  MATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

discussion  of  the  subject  of  man's  origin,  writes  :  ''  To 
sum  up,  tlie  theory  that  man  is  descended  from  the 
monkey  by  means  of  successive  modifications  is  a  brilHant 
fancy  which  has  no  support  in  precise  facts  ;  in  most 
cases  it  depends  upon  possibilities,  and  often  upon  pos- 
sibilities in  flagrant  opposition  to  facts.  In  tlie  name 
of  scientific  truth  I  affirm  that  we  have  had  for  ancestors 
neither  gorilla  nor  ourang-outang  nor  chimpanzee." 
("  Natural  History  of  Man,"  p.  86.) 

Principal  Dawson  writes  :  "  Evolution  cheats  us  with 
the  semblance  of  a  man  w^itliout  the  reality.  Shave  and 
paint  your  ape  as  you  may,  clothe  him  and  set  him  uj^on 
his  feet,  still  he  fails  greatly  of  '  the  human  form 
divine  ;'  and  so  it  is  with  him  morally  and  spiritually 
as  well.  We  have  seen  that  he  wants  the  instinct  of  im- 
mortality, the  love  of  God,  the  mental  and  spiritual 
power  of  exercising  dominion  over  the  earth."  ("  The 
Earth  and  Man,"  p.  395.) 

The  possession  of  intellect  and  conscience  ;  the  capac- 
ity for  distinguishing  between  truth  and  error,  right  and 
wrong  ;  the  ability  to  communicate  thought  by  language, 
and  to  originate  the  fine  arts — painting,  sculpture,  archi- 
tecture— and  to  start  and  carry  forward  all  that  is  em- 
braced in  our  modern  civilization,  to  eay  nothing  of 
anatomical  differences,  make  between  the  ape  and  man 
not  as  wide  a  gulf,  it  may  be,  as  that  which  separates 
between  the  living  and  the  non-living,  but  a  gulf  as 
utterly  imj^assable. 

§  29.  Evolution  in  its  Limited  Range. 

In  view  of  the  facts  stated  in  the  last  section,  such 
naturalists  as  Virchowof  Germany,  Wallace  of  England, 
and  Dana  of  our  own  country  unite  with  Do  Quatre- 


EVOLUTION".  69 

fages  and  Dawson  in  rejecting  the  liypotliesis  of  evolu- 
tion as  applied  to  man. 

Taking  the  hypothesis,  noio,  in  its  limited  range  as 
heginning  the  series  with  Darxiohi's  primordial  living 
heings,  and  excluding  the  origin  of  man  from  its  phe- 
nomena— and  it  is  with  these  limitations  it  is  generally 
held,  where  it  is  held  at  all — m^y  we  accept  it,  on  scien- 
tific grounds,  as  prohahly  true  f 

I  put  the  question  in  this  form,  because  evolution  is, 
to  use  the  words  of  Professor  Huxley,  "  as  yet  a  hypoth- 
esis, and  not  the  theory  of  species."  ('^  Lay  Sermons," 
p.  295.)*  And  a  hypothesis  is  merely  ''a  provisional 
explanation  of  phenomena,"  and  therefore  to  be  held 
ready  to  be  given  up  whenever  a  more  satisfactory  ex- 
planation is  offered,  and   should  never  be  accounted  as 

*  Evolutionists  differ,  not  only  in  the  range  which  they  assign 
to  its  operation,  but  also  as  to  the  means  by  which  this  evolution  is 
effected.  The  following  "conspectus"  of  the  several  theories  is 
from  Professor  Winchell's  "  Doctrine  of  Evolution,"  pp.  44,  45. 

"Through  a  force  which  is  a  mode  of  the  unknowable." — Spencer. 

Through  external  forces. 

*'  Physical  surroundings  (Transmutation).*'— De  Ilaillet. 

Conflicts  of  individuals,  or  "natural  selection." 

Embracing  mental  and  moral  nature. 

"By  insensible  gradations  {Variative)." —Darwin,  Eaeckel,  Chap- 
man, etc. 

"  With  occasional  leaps  {Saltative)."— Huxley. 

*'  Excluding  the  mind  and  body  of  mem."— Wallace. 

Through  an  internal  force,  influenced  by  external  conditions. 

"Perpetual  effort  to  improve  {Gonative^variative)." —Lamarck,  St. 
Hilaire. 

Genetic  process  exclusively  {Filiaiive). 

"  Prolonged  development  of  embryo  {Variative-JHiative)." 

_«  Vestiges." 

"Accelerated  development  {Variaiive-filiaiivey —Hyatt  and  Cope. 

"Extraordinary  births    {Saliative-ihamogeney  —  Parsons,     Owen, 

Mivart. 
*«  Partheno.Genesis  {Saliaiive-jUiativey —Ferris y  Kolliker. 


70  NATURE   AND    REVELATIOCT. 

an  integral  part  of  science  itself.  True  science  is  made 
up  of  a  statement  of  facts  and  of  conclusions  readied 
by  reasoning  upon  tliese  facts  ;  and  lience,  in  tlie  his- 
tory of  science,  Y\^liile  hypotheses  innumerable  have 
arisen,  been  popular  for  a  season,  and  then  passed  away 
and  been  forgotten,  true  science  has  remained  unchanged. 
Huxley  rests  the  claim  of  evolution  to  acceptance  mainly 
upon  the  gradual  advance  in  the  type  of  living  beings, 
as  we  learn  the  history  of  organic  nature  from  a  study 
of  the  fossiliferous  rock  strata  of  the  earth,  and  the 
satisfactory  explanation  which  it  gives  of  the  natural 
grouping  of  plants  and  animals,  as  set  forth  in  the 
natural  system  of  classification,  now  universally  adopted 
by  botanists  and  zoologists. 

Darwin,  in  addition  to  this,  urges  certain  facts  respect- 
ing the  geographical  distribution  of  plants  and  animals 
—the  variation  which  animals  undergo  in  the  earlier 
stages  of  their  existence,  as  they  present  themselves  in 
our  study  of  embryology,  and  the  existence  of  rudi- 
mentary organs  in  certain  animals — all  which  he  contends 
are  better  and  more  fully  explained  by  the  hypothesis  of 
evolution  than  in  any  other  way. 

Before  entering  upon  a  'particular  examination  of 
these  several  points,  1  would  remind  the  reader  that 
there  is  another  hypothesis — we  will  call  it  a  hypothesis 
for  the  present— covering  the  same  ground  that  evolu- 
tion does,  which  was  at  one  time  universally  adopted, 
and  even  now  is  held  by  men  of  no  mean  attainments 
in  science — e.g.^  Louis  Agassiz  and  Principal  Dawson— 
viz. :  the  hypothesis  of  creation — creation  by  an  almighty, 
intelligent  being,  working  according  to  a  plan,  and  with 
a  definite  end  in  view.  And  I  will  ask  him  especially 
to  notice  two  particulars  in  this  hypothesis,  as  it  is  set 
forth  in  the  oldest  cosmogony  extant— a  cosmogony  which 


EVOLUTION".  71 

has  moulded  the  thoughts  on  this  subject  of  many  genera- 
tions. 

(1)  Creation  is  not  a  single  act  of  the  Almighty,  by 
which  our  world,  embracing  organic  as  well  as  inorganic 
nature,  was  brought  into  being,  but  a  continuous  work, 
or  succession  of  acts,  extending  over  a  long  period,  but 
terminating  with  the  creation  of  man  ;  and  (2)  in  the 
creation  of  plants  and  animals  they  were  not  brought 
into  being  as  single  individuals,  or  pairs  at  the  most,  as 
evolution  demands  ;  but  when  the  Creator  spake  He  said  : 
^'  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abundantly  (literally  swarm 
forth)  the  moving  creature  that  hath  life,  and  fowls 
that  they  may  fly  above  the  earth,  in  the  open  firmament 
of  heaven."  (Gen.  1  :  20.)  The  result  of  such  a  work 
of  creation  was  at  once  to  people  the  air,  the  earth,  and 
the  sea  with  many  individuals  or  pairs  of  every  species 
intended  to  inhabit  them  —  man,  the  species  homo, 
being  the  only  exception  to  this  general  rule. 

§  30.  ArgumenU  for  Evolidion. 

Turning  now  to  an  examination  of  the  several  argu- 
ments by  which  evolution  is  urged  upon  our  acceptance 
by  its  advocates,  we  will  consider  them  in  order,  begin- 
ning with  the  least  important. 

1.  The  existence  of  rudimentary  organs  in  certain 
plants  and  animals.  Giving  instances  of  rudimentary 
organs,  Darwin  writes  :  ''In  the  mammalia  the  males  pos- 
sess rudimentary  mammre  ;  in  snakes  one  lobe  of  the  lungs 
is  rudimeatary  ;  in  birds  the  hastard-wing  may  safely  be 
considered  a  rudimentary  digit,  and  in  some  species  is 
60  far  rudimentary  that  it  cannot  be  used  for  flight. 
What  can  be  more  curious  than  the  presence  of  teeth  in 
foetal  whales,  which  when  grown  up  liave  not  a  tooth  in 
their  heads,  or  the  teeth  which  never  cut  through  the 


72  NATURE   AIs^D    REVELATION". 

gums  in  the  upper  jaws  of  unborn  calves  !"  And  sub- 
sequently he  adds  :  "It  appears  probable  that  disuse  has 
been  the  main  agent  in  rendering  organs  rudimentary. 
It  would  at  first  lead  by  slow  steps  to  the  more  and  more 
complete  reduction  of  a  part,  until  at  last  it  became 
rudimentary,  as  in  the  case  of  the  eyes  of  the  animals 
inhabiting  dark  caverns,  and  of  the  wings  of  birds  in- 
habiting oceanic  islands,  which  hav^e  seldom  been  forced 
by  beasts  of  prey  to  take  flight,  and  have  ultimately  lost 
the  power  of  flying."  ("  Origin  of  Species,"  pp.  4-06, 
408.) 

In  reply  1  would  say,  Darwin's  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  rudimentary  organs  may  be  the  true  one — in 
some  cases  it  doubtless  is  ;  but  (1)  I  do  not  see  how, 
when  thus  explained,  they  furnish  any  support  to  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution  ;  the  cases  as  he  states  them  are 
cases  of  degeneration,  and  not  of  evolution  ;  and  (2)  the 
variations  here  cited  are  not  variations  originating  new 
species,  but  simply  new  varieties  of  an  old  species. 
Kespecting  one  of  the  blind  animals  inhabiting  the  Mam- 
moth Cave  in  Kentucky — the  cave  rat — Darwin  tells  us 
'^  two  of  them  were  captured  by  Professor  Silliman  at 
about  half  a  mile  distance  from  the  mouth  of  the  cave, 
and  therefore  not  in  the  prof oundest  depths.  Their  eyes 
were  lustrous  and  of  large  size  ;  and  these  animals,  as  I 
am  informed  by  Professor  Silliman,  after  having  been  ex- 
posed for  about  a  month  to  a  graduated  light,  acquired  a 
dim  perception  of  objects."  ("Origin  of  Species,"  ch.  5.) 
The  blindness  of  this  cave  rat  no  more  entitled  it  to  be 
considered  a  species  dillerent  from  that  inhabiting  the 
country  adjacent  to  the  cave  than  the  blindness  of  the 
blind  man  entitles  him  to  be  considered  a  species  of  man 
different  from  the  men  around  him  whose  eyes  yet  serve 
the  purposes  of  sight.     'No  naturalist,  in  so  far  as  I  know. 


EVOLUTION.  73 

has  ever  proposed  to  classify  blind  men  even  as  a  variety 
of  the  species  homo  ;  and  certainly  not  as  a  new  species. 
2.  The  facts  of  ciiibrijology  are  cited  in  support  of  the 
Mjpo thesis  of  evolution.  On  this  subject  Spencer  writes  : 
^'  That  the  uneducated  and  the  ill-educated  should  think 
that  the  hypothesis  that  all  races  of  beings,  man  Inclusive, 
may  in  process  of  time  have  been  evolved  from  the 
simplest  monad,  a  ludicrous  one,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at. 
But  for  the  physiologist,  who  knows  that  every  individual 
being  is  so  evolved,  who  knows,  further,  that  in  their 
earliest  condition  the  germs  of  all  plants  and  animals  what- 
ever are  so  similar,  that  there  is  no  appreciable  distinc- 
tion among  them  which  would  enable  ns  to  determine 
whether  a  particular  molecule  is  the  germ  of  a  conferva 
or  of  an  oak,  of  a  zoophyte  or  of  a  man  ;  for  him  to 
make  a  difficulty  of  the  matter  is  inexcusable.  Surely,  if 
a  single  cell  may,  when  subjected  to  certain  influences, 
become  a  man  in  the  space  of  twenty  years,  there  is 
nothing  absurd  in  the  hypothesis  that  under  certain  other 
influences  a  cell  may  in  the  course  of  millions  of  years 
give  origin  to  the  human  race.  The  two  processes  are 
generically  the  same,  and  dilfer  only  in  length  and  com- 
plexity."     C  Progreso,"  Hmnbcldt   Library,  No.   17, 

p.  ^Q^k) 

To  this  1  reply  :  (1)  All  the  variations  with  which  the 
study  of  embryology  has  made  us  acquainted,  and  to 
which  Spencer  refers  in  the  above-quoted  paragraph, 
are  variations  of  growth-development,  and,  as  we  have 
already  seen  (§  25),  belong  to  a  system  of  revolution,  and 
not  evolution  ;  they  are  parts  of  a  scries  which  runs  a 
certain  round,  returning  ever  to  the  same  starting-point 
again  ;  they  belong  to  the  history  of  an  individual  hfe, 
and  are  repeated  only  as  that  life  is  repeated.  In  the 
case  of  the  silk-worm  moth,  it  is  first  an  Qg^,  then  a 


74  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

caterpillar,  then  a  clirysalis,  and  lastly  a  winged  insect  ; 
and  just  such  as  it  is  to-day  it  was  six  thousand  years 
ago,  in  the  garden  of  Eden  ;  and  although  it  has  passed 
throuo^h  this  whole  series  of  chano;es  six  thousand  times, 
it  has  made  no  upward  progress  in  its  form  and  structure  ; 
there  has  been  through  its  growth -variations  no  evolu- 
tion into  a  creature  of  a  higher  order ;  (2)  these  vari- 
ations of  growth-development  exhibit,  it  is  true,  possi- 
bilities of  change  in  animal  structure,  and  that  is  all 
that  can  be  claimed  for  them.  De  Quatrefages  Vfell 
says  :  "  "When  we  get  upon  the  ground  of  possibility,  I 
know  not  where  we  shall  stop.  Everything  is  possible 
except  that  which  implies  contradiction.  Consequently, 
we  are  no  longer  on  the  ground  of  science,  which  de- 
mands positive,  precise  facts.  We  are  living  in  the  land 
of  romance."     (''  Natural  History  of  Man,"  p.  82.) 

3.  The  geographical  distribution  of  plants  and  animals 
is  appealed  to  by  evolutionists  ;  especially  the  fact  that 
certain  species  are  to  be  found  in  certain  countries  only 
— e.g.,  the  kangaroo  in  Australia  and  the  sloth  in  South 
America  ;  and  it  is  said,  if  we  suppose  them  to  be  the 
product  of  evolution,  we  can  readily  understand  how, 
having  been  evolved  in  the  countries  in  which  they  are 
found,  they  have  not  yet  spread  to  other  parts  of  the 
earth. 

To  this  I  re2:)ly,  True  ;  but  on  the  hypothesis  of  crea- 
tion, we  may  suppose,  either  that  they  were  never 
created  in  the  countries  in  which  they  are  wanting,  as  a 
wise  Creator  would  never  have  created  tropical  animals 
in  the  Arctic  regions,  or  that,  having  once  existed  widely 
diffused,  they  have  died  out  in  all  except  the  lands  in 
which  they  are  now  found.  The  disappearance  by  death 
of  species  of  plants  and  animals  from  a  country  is  an 
event  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  history  of  our  world. 


EVOLUTION".  75 

The  dodo,  an  immense  bird,  once  inhabiting  the  islands 
of  Bourbon  and  Mauritius,  has  become  extinct  since  the 
discovery  of  those  islands  by  Europeans,  in  the  course  of 
the  last  hundred  and  fifty  years.  "  Pictet  catalogues 
ninety-eight  species  of  mammals  which  have  inhabited 
Europe  in  the  post-glacial  period.  Of  these,  fifty-seven 
still  exist  unchanged,  and  the  remaining  forty-one  have 
disappeared."     ("  The  Earth  and  Man,"  p.  357.) 

The  wide  distribution  of  certain  species  of  animals — 
e.g,^  the  oyster — and  the  oyster,  in  some  of  its  varieties, 
is  to  be  found  on  the  coast  of  almost  every  country  within 
the  torrid  and  temperate  zones — is  very  difficult  to  account 
for  on  the  hypothesis  of  evolution,  which  traces  all  the 
oysters  in  the  world  back  to  an  original  oyster,  evolved 
from  some  lower  moUusk,  at  some  one  point  from  which 
they  must  all  have  distributed  themselves.  On  this  point 
Darwin  writes  :  *'  Turning  to  geographical  distribution, 
the  difficulties  encountered  on  the  theory  of  '  descent 
ivith  modification '  are  serious  enough.  All  the  in- 
dividuals of  the  same  species,  and  all  the  species  of  the 
same  genus,  or  even  higher  group,  must  have  descended 
from  common  parents  ;  and  therefore,  in  however  dis- 
tant and  isolated  parts  of  the  world  they  may  now  be 
found,  they  must  in  the  course  of  successive  generations 
have  travelled  from  some  one  point  to  all  others.  We 
are  often  wholly  unable  to  conjecture  how  this  could  have 
been  effected."  ("  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  41i.)  If  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution  seems  to  possess  some  little 
advantage  over  that  of  creation  in  our  study  of  the 
kangaroo,  '^  the  tables  are  turned  "  comj)letely  when  we 
come  to  the  study  of  the  oyster. 

4.  A  fourth  argument  in  support  of  evolution  is 
founded  upon  the  grculual  advance  in  type  of  living 
creatures^  as  we  learn  the  history  of  organic  nature  from 


76  KATUEE   AND   KEVELATIOi^. 

an  examination  of  tlie  fossiliferous  rock  strata  of  the 
eartii  ;  and  the  satisfactory  exjplanation  which  it  fur- 
nishes of  the  natural  groupings  of  lylants  and  animals^ 
as  set  forth  in  the  natural  system  of  classification  now 
universally  adopted  by  botanists  and  zoologists.  On  this 
ground,  mainly,  Professor  Huxley  advocates  the  hypoth- 
esis ;  and,  in  my  judgment,  it  furnishes  the  strongest  ar- 
gument which  has  yet  been  brought  forward  in  its  favor. 

Evolution  does  afford  a  very  simple  and  a  very  beauti- 
ful explanation  of  both  the  gradual  advance  in  type  of 
living  creatures  and  the  natural  groupings  of  plants  and 
animals.  But  the  theorj^  of  creation  by  an  almighty  and 
intelligent  creator,  working  with  a  plan  determined  on  at 
the  beginning,  affords,  1  think,  an  explanation  equally 
simple  and  equally  beautiful.  Of  our  system  of  natural 
classification  Louis  Agassiz  writes  :  "  Are  our  systems  the 
inventions  of  naturalists,  or  only  their  readings  of  the 
Book  of  Nature  ?  ...  If  these  classifications  are 
not  mere  inventions,  if  they  are  not  an  attempt  to 
classify  for  our  own  convenience  the  objects  we  study, 
then  they  are  the  thoughts  which,  whether  we  detect 
them  or  not,  are  expressed  in  nature  ;  then  nature  is  the 
work  of  thouglit,  the  product  Of  intelligence,  carried  out 
according  to  plan,  therefore  premeditated  ;  and  in  our 
study  of  natural  objects  we  are  approaching  the  thoughts 
of  the  Creator,  reading  His  conceptions,  interpreting  a 
system  that  is  His,  and  not  ours."  ("  Methods  of  Study 
in  Natural  History,"  pp.  13,  1-1.) 

I  have  now  given  the  reader  a  brief  but,  I  think,  a 
fair  statement  of  tlie  arguments  by  w4iich  Darwin  and 
other  evolutionists  support  their  hypotheses,  with  my 
answers  thereto.  These  arguments  may  be  found  stated 
at  large  in  ''  Tlie  Origin  of  Species,"  first  published  in 
1859.     In  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  for  July, 


EVOLUTION.  77 

1884:,  Dr.  "Woodrow  published  his  article  on  evolution, 
and  in  this  he  advances  the  same  four  arguments  in  sup- 
port of  it  by  which  Darwin  advocated  it,  and  which  are 
briefly  stated  above.  His  is  the  latest  statement  of  the 
argument  for  evolution,  by  one  fully  competent  to  make 
a  fair  statement,  that  I  hav^e  seen.  And  1  call  the 
reader's  attention  to  it  now,  that  he  may  note  the  fact 
that  twenty-five  years  of  earnest  study  and  voluminous 
writing  on  the  part  of  such  men  as  Spencer  and  Huxley 
and  Mivart  has  added  nothing  really  new  to  the  argu- 
ment originally  advanced  by  Darwin. 

§  31.  Borpve  Ohjections  to  JEvolution. 

The  hypothesis  of  evolution  has  been  objected  to  on 
several  grounds.  Among  the  most  important  of  these 
are  the  following — viz. : 

1.  In  the  case  of  certain  natural  groups — e.g. ,  the  group 
of  mOilusks  inhabiting  chambered  shells,  such  as  the 
nautilus  pompilius  of  our  day — and  this  group  stands  at 
the  head  of  the  class  of  mollusks — the  higher  species  ap- 
pear first  and  not  the  lowest^  as  evolution  would  reqxiire. 
Their  history,  if  they  be  the  product  of  evolution,  is  one 
of  deo-radation  and  not  advance  in  the  scale  of  beine:. 
This  truth,  which  has  been  recognized  from  the  first,  has 
become  more  and  more  evident  as  the  discussion  lias  pro- 
ceeded. 

Grant  Allen  is  the  only  naturalist,  in  so  far  as  I  know, 
who  has  taken  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  with  him  out 
into  the  field,  and  attempted  to  apply  it  in  detail  to  plants 
and  animals.  This  he  has  done  in  a  very  interesting 
series  of  papers,  embraced  in  his  '^  Evolutionist  at  Large" 
and  ^'  Vignettes  from  Nature."  The  conclusion  to 
which  he  comes  on  this  point  he  gives  us  in  these  words  : 
*'  The  real  fact  is,  that  by  far  the  greatest  number  of 


78  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

plants  and  animals  are  degraded  types — products  of  retro- 
gression rather  than  of  upward  development.  Take  it 
on  tlie  whole,  evolution  is  always  producing  higher  and 
still  higher  forms  of  life  ;  but  at  the  same  time  stragglers 
are  always  falling  into  the  rear,  as  the  world  marches 
onward,  and  learning  how  to  get  their  livelihood  in  some 
new  and  disreputable  manner,  rendered  possible  by 
nature's  latest  achievements.  The  degraded  types  live 
lower  lives,  often  at  the  expense  of  the  higher,  but  they 
live  on  somehow,  just  as  the  evolution  of  man  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  evolution  of  some  fifty  new  parasites,  on 
purpose  to  feed  upon  him."  (Humboldt  Library,  No. 
33,  p.  5.)  That  "  the  evolution  of  man  was  followed  by 
the  evolution  of  some  fifty  new  parasites  on  purpose  to 
feed  upon  him,"  if  it  means  anything,  must  mean  that 
at  the  same  time  that  man  was  developed  from  the 
highest  of  brutes,  by  an  evolution  upward,  some  fifty 
parasites  were  developed  from  the  lower  orders  of  the 
animal  kingdom,  by  an  evolution  downward — an  evolu- 
tion of  degradation.  If  this  be  a  correct  representation 
of  the  facts  in  the  case — if  plants  and  animals  are  as 
often  ' '  the  products  of  retrogression  as  of  upward  de- 
velopment," then  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
that  the  true  starting-point  of  the  animal  kingdom  was 
not  with  the  low^est  and  simplest  in  structure — e.g.^  the 
eozoon — but  somewhere' about  the  middle  of  the  line,  as 
from  this  point  only  could  evolution  have  proceeded  in 
both  directions.  This  conclusion  is  utterly  irreconcilable 
with  "  the  record  of  the  rocks." 

2.  The  great  number  of  transition  forms  required  to 
connect  species  with  species,  according  to  the  evolution 
hypothesis,  cannot  he  found.  Darwin  accounts  for  their 
absence  from  the  kingdom  of  living  organic  nature  as  it 
surrounds  us  to-day  by  supposing  that  there  is  now,  and 


EVOLUTION.  79 

has  been  all  along,  ''  a  struggle  for  existence,  with  a  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest,"  and  that  in  this  struggle  these  transi- 
tion forms  have  disappeared.  If  we  admit  this  explana- 
tion as  to  the  present,  it  does  not  touch  the  case  of  the 
past.  If  in  the  struggle  for  existence  innumerable 
species  have  perished  all  along  the  line  from  the  begin- 
ning—and Darwin  expressly  admits  that  this  must  have 
been  true — how  comes  it  that  in  the  fossil  if  erous  rocks, 
that  vast  burjing-ground  of  the  ages,  none  of  their  graves 
are  to  be  found  ?  Evolution  demands  a  continuous  chain, 
<jonnecting  the  latest  with  the  earliest  forms  ;  while  the 
fossilif erous  rocks  disclose  only  detached  portions  of  a 
chain,  with  innumerable  missing  links. 

On  this  point  Darwin  writes  :  "  Why,  then,  is  not  every 
geological  formation  and  every  stratum  full  of  such  inter- 
mediate links  ?  Geology  assuredly  does  not  reveal  any 
such  finely  graduated  organic  chain  ;  and  this,  perhaps, 
is  the  most  obvious  and  serious  objection  which  can  be 
urged  against  the  theory.  The  explanation  lies,  as  I 
believe,  in  the  extreme  imperfection  of  the  geological 
record. ' '  And  he  subsequently  adds  :  ' '  The  noble  science 
of  geology  loses  glory  from  the  extreme  imperfection  of 
the  record.  The  crust  of  the  earth,  with  its  embedded 
remains,  must  not  be  looked  at  as  a  well-liUed  museum, 
but  as  a  poor  collection  made  at  hazard,  and  at  rare  inter- 
vals." ("Origin  of  Species,"  ch.  15.)  And  Huxley 
writes  :  "  It  is  only  about  the  ten-thousandth  part  of  the 
accessible  parts  of  the  earth  that  lias  been  examined  care- 
fully. Therefore,  it  is  with  justice  that  the  most 
thoughtful  of  those  who  are  concerned  in  these  inquiries 
insist  continually  upon  the  imperfection  of  the  geological 
record  ;  for,  I  repeat,  it  is  absolutely  necessary,  from  the 
nature  of  things,  that  that  record  should  be  of  the  most 
fragmentary    and    imperfect    character."      (Humboldt 


so  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

Library,  No.  16,  p.  192.)  And  yet,  on  the  authority 
of  this  "  most  fragmentary  and  imperfect  record,"  cover- 
ing *^  only  about  the  ten-thousandth  part  of  the  acces- 
sible parts  of  the  earth,"  Huxley  does  not  hesitate  to  sat 
aside  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  as  irreconcilable  with  the 
plain  teachings  of  geology. 

But  is  this  record  so  exceedingly  imperfect  ?  In  liis 
'^  Primeval  Man"  the  Duke  of  Argyll  writes  :  "  It  is  true 
that  this  record — the  geological  record — is  imperfect. 
But,  as  Sir  Roderick  Murchison  has  long  ago  proved,  there 
are  parts  of  that  record  Vv^hich  are  singularly  complete, 
and  in  those  parts  we  have  the  proofs  of  creation,  with- 
out any  indication  of  development.  The  Silurian  rocks, 
as  regards  oceanic  life,  are  perfect  and  abundant  in  the 
forms  they  have  preserved,  yet  there  are  no  fish.  The 
Devonian  Age  foUoAved  tranquilly  and  without  a  break  ; 
and  in  the  Devonian  sea  suddenly  fish  appear — appear 
in  shoals  and  in  forms  of  the  highest  and  most  perfect 
type.  There  is  no  trace  of  links  or  transitional  forms 
between  the  great  class  of  mollusks  and  the  great  class 
of  fishes.  There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  suppose  that 
such  forms,  if  they  had  existed,  can  have  been  destroyed 
in  deposits  which  have  preserved  in  wonderful  perfection 
the  minutest  organisms."  (^'Primeval  Man,''  pp.  45, 
^6.) 

§  32.   Two  Fatal  Objections  to  Ecolution. 

Besides  the  objections  stated  above,  there  are  two  fatal 
objections  to  the  evolution  hypothesis,  not  only  in  the 
form  in  which  Darwin  states  it,  but  in  any  and  all  its 
forms,  either  of  which  should,  I  think,  settle  the  ques- 
tion as  a  question  between  it  and  the  theory  of  creation. 

1.  In  nature— o^itside  the  disturbing  agency  of  intel- 
ligent man — there  is  no  tendency  to  permanent  change 


EVOLUTION.  81 

manifested  hy  plants  a.i\(L  animals — no  tendency  to 
advance  in  structure  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  manifest 
tendency  to  preserve  the  status  quo  of  their  beginning. 
Variations,  undoubtedly,  do  sometimes  occur  in  plants 
and  animals  in  a  wild  state,  or  state  of  nature  ;  but  when 
they  do  occur,  the  law  of  "  reversion  to  type  "  (§  28) 
comes  in,  and  soon  wipes  them  out  again.  The  variety 
of  grape  known  as  the  scuppernong,  a  favorite  variety 
throughout  the  South,  I  have  reason  to  believe  is  a 
variety  produced  "  in  a  wild  state  ;"  and  it  can  be  prop- 
agated by  layering  or  dividing  the  roots  only.  AVhen- 
ever  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  go  back  to  the  seed, 
the  result  has  been  a  vine  bearing  not  the  yellowish-green 
scuppernong,  with  its  delicious  flavor,  but  the  well- 
known  black  muscadine. 

The  highly  improved  varieties  of  animals — and  the 
same  is  true  of  plants — can  be  maintained  only  by  the 
greatest  care  on  the  part  of  the  stock-breeder.  Let  him 
turn  out  the  finest  Jersey  cow  in  all  his  herd  to  run 
wild  on  the  prairies  and  mingle  with  the  wild  stock 
there,  and  she  will  either  die  without  issue,  or  her  de- 
scendants will  degenerate  from  generation  to  generation, 
until  they  become  undistinguishable  from  the  wild  stock 
around  them. 

h\  the  ancient  painting  and  sculptures  of  Egypt  and 
Africa  we  have  depicted  many  plants  and  animals  as 
they  existed  three  or  four  thousand  years  ago  ;  and  by 
comparing  these  representations  with  the  same  plants 
and  animals  as  they  exist  to-day,  we  learn  that  there  has 
been  no  change  in  all  this  time.  This  Darwin  himself 
admits.  (See  "  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  152.)  Louis  Agas- 
siz,  a  few  years  ago,  made  an  examination  of  the  Florida 
reefs.  After  carefully  comparing  the  form  and  structure 
of  the  coral  polyps  at  work  there  to-day  with  those  that 


82  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

must  have  built  the  oldest  reefs,  he  writes  :  '^  In  these 
seventy  thousand  years  has  there  been  any  change  in  the 
corals  livinir  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  ?  I  answer  most 
emphatically,  No.  Astreans,  porites,  meandi'inas,  and 
madrepores  were  represented  by  exactly  the  same  species 
seventy  thousand  years  ago  as  they  are  now. "  ("  Methods 
of  Study  in  Katural  History,"  p.  190.)  Principal  Daw- 
son gives  us  the  results  of  his  observations  on  this  point, 
in  the  case  of  certain  mollusks,  in  these  words  :  ''  I  have 
for  many  years  occupied  a  httle  of  my  leisure  in  collect- 
ing the  numerous  species  of  mollusks  and  other  marine 
animals  existing  in  a  sub-fossil  state  in  the  post-pliocene 
clays  of  Canada,  and  comparing  them  with  their  modern 
successors.  I  do  not  know  how  long  these  animals  have 
lived.  Some  of  them,  certainly,  go  back  into  the  ter- 
tiary, and  recent  computation  w^ould  place  even  the 
Glacial  Age  at  a  distance  from  us  of  more  than  a  thou- 
sand centuries.  Yet  after  carefully  studying  about  two 
hundred  species,  and  of  some  of  them  many  hundred  of 
specimens,  I  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  they 
are  absolutely  unchanged."  ("The  Earth  and  Man," 
pp.  358,  359.) 

''Artificial"  and  ''natural"  selection  are  used  by 
Darwin  and  Huxley  as  correlative  terms.  Thus,  Dar- 
win writes:  "  Can  the  principle  of  selection,  which  we 
have  seen  is  so  potent  in  the  hands  of  man,  apply  under 
nature  ?  I  think  w^e  shall  see  that  it  can  act  most  effi- 
ciently." "  As  man  can  produce,  and  certainly  has  pro- 
duced, a  great  result  by  his  methodical  and  unconscious 
means  of  selection,  what  may  not  natural  selection  effect  ?" 
"  As  man  can  produce  a  great  result  with  domestic 
animals  and  plants  by  adding  up  in  any  given  direction 
individual  differences,  so  could  natural  selection— but  far 
more  easily — from  having  incomparably  longer  time  for 


EVOLUTION".  83 

action."  (^'Origin  of  Species,"  cli.  4.)  Under  tlie 
term  "  artificial  selection"  tliey  include  all  the  agencies, 
whatever  may  be  their  nature,  through  which  intelligent 
man  has  secured  our  improved  varieties  of  plants  and 
animals.  By  "natural  selection,"  then,  they  must 
mean  a  natural  agency,  which,  in  the  wild  condition  of 
plants  and  animals,  and  without  any  guidance  of  intel- 
ligence, shall  accomplish  the  same,  and  even  far  greater 
results.  Now,  in  view  of  the  facts  stated  above,  I  say 
natural  selection  has  no  existence  ;  it  is  a  creature  of 
Darwin's  imagination.  The  manifest  tendency  in  nature 
is  to  preserve  the  status  quo  of  its  beginning. 

Professor  Huxley  virtually  admits  this.  "  There  is  no 
fault,"  writes  he,  "to  be  found  with  Mr.  Darwin's 
method,  then  ;  but  it  is  another  question  whether  he 
has  fultilled  all  the  conditions  imposed  by  that  method. 
Is  it  satisfactorily  proved,  in  fact,  that  species  may  be 
originated  by  selection  ?  that  there  is  such  a  thing 
as  natural   selection  f^   that   none  of    the   phenomena 

*  Dr.  Woodrow  charges  me  with  perverting  this  declaration  of 
Professor  Huxley.  In  the  Southern  Fresbylerian  of  May  7th,  1885,  he 
"writes:  "Any  one  can  see  that  the  question  Professor  Huxley  is 
here  discussing  is  not  evolution,  but  whether  natural  selection  is 
the  process  by  which  evolution  is  efEected.  .  .  .  The  reason  why 
we  have  taken  time  to  make  this  point  perfectly  clear  is  that  Dr.  Arm- 
strong quotes  (as  many  others  have  done  during  this  discussion)  some 
of  the  expressions  above  given  as  if  they  were  applied  by  Professor 
Huxley  to  evolution,  thus  wholly  misunderstanding  and  therefore 
perverting  what  he  has  said."     To  this  I  reply  : 

1.  If  Dr.  Woodrow  will  read  carefully  what  I  have  written,  he  will 
see  that  my  quotation  is  a  perfectly  fair  one— a  quotation  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley's  virtual  admission  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
natural  selection,  in  support  of  my  position  that  natural  selection 
has  no  existence. 

2.  Professor  Huxley,  as  we  all  know,  is  a  pronounced  evolution- 
ist ;  and  Professor  Winchell  correctly  represents  him  as  teaching  that 
evolution  is  effected  by  natural  selection,  the  only  difference  betweea 


84  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

are  inconsistent  with  tlie  origin  of  species  in  this  way  ? 
If  these  questions  can  be  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
Mr.  Darwin's  views  step  out  of  the  rank  of  hypotheses 
into  that  of  proved  theories  ;  but  so  long  as  the 
evidence  at  present  adduced  falls  short  of  enforcing 
that  affirmation,  so  long  to  our  minds  must  the  new 
doctrine  be  content  to  remain  amono-  the  former — an 
extremely  valuable  and  in  the  highest  degree  probable 
doctrine — indeed,  the  only  extant  hypothesis  which  is 
worth  anything  in  a  scientific  point  of  view,  but  still  a 
hypothesis,  and  not  yet  the  theory  of  species."  (''  Lay 
Sermons,"  pp.  294,  295.) 

In  explanation  of  Professor  Huxley-s  remark,  quoted 
above,  that  evolution  is  ^'  the  only  extant  hypothesis 
which  is  worth  anything  in  a  scientific  point  of  view," 
1  must  tell  the  reader  that  he  rejects  the  theory  of  crea- 
tion as  unscientific,  because  incapable  of  verification  by 
direct  observation  in  our  day — a  position  involve* ng  a  very 
false  view  of  the  nature  of  science,  as  I  think,  and  cer- 
tainly untenable  by  one  who  confesses  himself  compelled 
to  admit  of  creation,  or  something  equivalent  thereto,  at 
two  points  in  the  history  of  our  world — viz. ;  the  origin 
of  matter  and  the  origin  of  life. 

II.  The  law  of  the  jpermanance  of  species — that,  how- 
ever great  the  variation  wrought,  under  the  operation  of 
natural  or  artificial  agencies,  may  be,  it  never  passes  the 
boundary  line  of  species,  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution.  That  hypothesis  is,  that  each 
higher  type  of  2:)lant  and  animal  has  been  evolved  from 


him  and  Darwin  being  that  while  Darwin  holds  that  natural  selection 
always  proceeds  by  "  insensible  gradations,"  Professor  Huxlej'^  holds 
that  there  are  "occasional  leaps"  (^  29,  note).  The  reconciliation  of 
this  belief  with  the  implied  admission,  quoted  above,  is  his  work, 
not  mine. 


EVOLUTION".  85 

the  next  below  it,  and  so  demands  the  passage  of  the 
boundary  lines,  not  of  one  species  only,  but  of  all  ;  and 
so  the  boundary  lines  of  genera,  orders,  and  classes  as 
well — all  that  intervenes  between  primordial  living  beings 
and  man. 

The  proof  of  the  permanence  of  species  I  have  already 
given  you  (§  26)  ;  and  if  we  are  to  proceed  upon 
principles  of  true  science,  we  must  consider  that  question 
settled,  at  least  for  the  present,  and  treat  it  as  a  settled 
question  ;  and  so  doing,  we  cannot  accept  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution. 

You  vrill  naturally  ask  me.  How  do  evolutionists  rec- 
oncile that  hypothesis  with  this  law  ?  Herbert  Spencer 
slurs  over  the  dithculty  in  this  style  :  ''  We  find  scat- 
tered over  the  globe  vegetable  and  animal  organisms 
numbering,  of  the  one  kind  (according  to  Humboldt), 
some  three  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  species,  and 
of  the  other,  some  two  million  species  (see  Carpenter)  ; 
and  if  to  these  we  add  the  numbers  of  animal  and  vege- 
table species  that  have  become  extinct,  we  may  safely 
estimate  the  number  of  species  i\\2it  exist  and  have  existed 
on  the  earth  at  not  less  than  ten  millions.  Well,  which 
is  the  most  rational  theory  about  these  ten  millions  of 
species  ?  Is  it  most  likely  that  there  have  been  ten  mill- 
ions of  special  creations  ?  or  is  it  most  likely  that  by 
continual  modifications,  due  to  change  of  circumstances, 
ten  millions  of  varieties  have  been  produced,  as  varieties 
are  being  produced  still?"  (''Progress:  its  Law  and 
Cause.")  The  ten  million  are  species  when  it  suits 
Spencer's  purpose,  and,  presto,  the  same  ten  million  are 
but  varieties  v/hen  that  suits  his  purpose  best.  Such 
juggling  with  terms  is  unworthy  an  honest  scientist. 
Others  have  attempted  a  reconciliation  by  supposing 
that  this  lav/  has  not  always  existed  ;  that  far  back  in 


86  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

ages  past  it  is  possible  that  a  different  order  of  things 
may  have  prevailed.  On  this  point  listen  to  De  Quatre- 
fages  :  '^  In  many  cases  these  possibilities  are  opposed  to 
the  facts  that  transpire  in  om'  da^^,  so  that  the  reasoning 
comes  to  this  ;  but  is  it  not  possible  that  events  took 
place  in  former  times  differently  from  those  which  hap- 
pen to  day  ?  Serious  science,  gentlemen,  cannot  accept 
this  mode  of  reasoning.  It  does  not  admit  changes  in 
the  laws  which  rule  this  world,  in  those  which  concern 
organic  beings  any  more  than  in  those  which  concern 
inorganic  bodies."   (''  I^latural  History  of  Man,"  p.  82.) 

§  33.    Conclusions. 

The  reader  has  now  the  whole  case  before  him  ;  the 
arguments  for  and  against  the  hypothesis  of  evolution 
briefly,  but  I  think  fairly,  stated."^  The  justice  of  the 
following  remarks  of  the  Duke  of  Argyll  no  thoughtful 
scientist  can  question — viz.:  "  If  the  theory  of  develop- 
ment can  be  shown  to  involve  difficulties  of  conception 
wdiich  are  quite  as  great  as  those  which  it  professes  to 
remove,  then  it  ceases  to  have  any  standing  ground  at 
all.  An  hypothesis  which  ^escapes  from  j^articular 
difficulties  by  encountering  others  which  are  smaller 
may  be  tolerated,  at  least  provisionally.  But  an  hypothe- 
sis which,  to  avoid  an  alternative  supposed  to  be  incon- 
ceivable, adopts  another  alternative  encompassed  by 
many  difficulties  quite  as  great,  is  not  entitled  even  to 
provisional  acceptance."  ("Primeval  Man,"  p.  48.) 
For  this  reason,  and  on  grounds  purely  scientific,  we  re- 
ject the  hypothesis  of  evolution  in  all  its  forms.  When 
Yirchow,  "  at  the  late  tercentenary  of  the  University  of 
Edinburgh,  in  the  presence  of  the  assembled  magnates  of 

*  For  a  further  discussion  of  the  theory  of  creation,  see  §§  51-54. 


EVOLUTION.  87 

Europe,  .  .  .  declared  with  great  empliasis  tliat  '  evolu- 
tion has  no  scientific  basis'  "  {Christian  Thought  for 
July,  1884),  he  expressed  just  the  conclusion  to  which,  in 
view  of  all  the  facts  of  the  case,  we  feel  constrained  to 
come.  Tlie  same  judgment  had  been  previously  ex- 
pressed by  the  Duke  of  Argyll  in  the  same  words  :  "  The 
various  hypotheses  of  development,"  writes  he,  ''of 
which  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  is  only  a  new  and  special  ver* 
sion,  .  .  .  are  destitute  of  proof  ;  and  in  the  form  which 
they  have  yet  assumed,  it  may  justly  be  said  that  they 
involve  such  violations  of  or  departures  from  all  that  we 
know  of  the  existing  order  of  things  as  to  deprive  them 
of  all  scientific  basis."  ("  Reign  of  Law,"  5th  ed.,  p.  28.) 
But  a  few  weeks  ago  it  was  stated  in  the  public  prints 
that  the  school  authorities  in  Prussia  had  prohibited  the 
teaching  of  evolution  in  their  public  schools.  Its  popu- 
larity, great  for  a  season,  is,  if  I  mistake  not,  on  the 
wane.  The  earlier  chapters  of  its  history  in  our  day 
were  bright,  but  bright  with  a  delusive  promise.  And  I 
will  venture  the  prediction  that  its  last  chapter — and 
those  now  living  will  have  the  opportunity  of  reading 
that  chapter — will  be  but  a  record  of  what  Huxley  calls 
the  oft-repeated  tragedy  of  science — the  slaughter  of  a 
beautiful  theory  by  ugly  facts.* 


*  The  most  recent  expressions  of  opinion  on  this  subject  which 
I  have  seen,  both  of  them  from  men  of  deservedly  high  standing  in 
the  scientific  world,  are  as  follows — viz. : 

Principal  Dawson,  of  Canada,  writes  :  "  The  doctrine  of  evolution, 
as  held  by  a  prominent  school  of  German  and  English  biologists,  I 
regard  as  equally  at  variance  with  science,  revelation,  and  common- 
sense,  and  destitute  of  any  foundation  in  fact.  It  belongs,  in  truth, 
to  the  region  of  those  illogical  paradoxes  and  loose  speculations 
which  have  ever  haunted  the  progress  of  knowledge,  and  have  been 
dispelled  only  by  increasing  light.  For  this  reason  I  have  always  re- 
fused  to  recognize  the  dreams  of  materialistic  evolution  as  of  any 


88  IS'ATURE    AI^D    REVELATION". 

§  34.  Relation  of  Revelation  to  Evolution  as  Taught  hy 

Huxley. 

The  evolution  hypothesis,  when  tahen  in  its  ividest 
range,  *'  wliich  solves  the  question  of  human  origin  by 
assuming  that  human  nature  exists  potentially  in  mere 
organic  matter,  and  that  a  chain  of  spontaneous  deriva- 
tion connects  incandescent  molecules  or  star-dust  with 
the  world  and  with  man  himself,"  is,  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, atheistic  ;  and  it  is  adopted  and  defended  bj^  its 
advocates  as  an  atheistic  hypothesis.  In  this  form  it  is 
confessedly  irreconcilable  with  revelation  and  the  Chris- 
tian faith. 

Just  how  far  Professor  Huxley  adopts  the  evolution 

scientific   significance,  or,   indeed,  as  belonging  to  science  at  all." 
{Philadelphia  Presbyterian,  July  11th,  1885.) 

Under  date  of  August  2d,  1885,  Professor  George  E.  Post  writes  : 
"  Yesterday  I  was  in  the  Natural  History  department  of  the  British 
Museum.  I  had  business  touching  some  fossils  which  I  found  in 
theLattakia  miocene  and  pliocene  clay  beds,  and  about  wliich  I  wrote 
an  article  which  ai3peared  in  Nature  last  year.  Mr.  Etheridge,  F.E.S., 
kindly  examined  and  named  them  for  me.  I  was  anxious  to  hear 
what  a  first-rate  working  scientist,  with  perhaps  the  largest  oppor- 
tunity for  induction  in  the  world,  would  say  on  Darwinian  evolution. 
So,  after  he  had  shown  me  all  the  wonders  of  the  establishment,  I 
asked  him  whether,  after  all,  this  was  not  the  working  out  of  mind 
and  providence.  lie  turned  to  me  with  a  clear,  honest  look  into  my 
eyes,  and  replied  :  '  In  all  this  great  museum  there  is  not  a  particle 
of  evidence  of  transmutation  of  species.  Nine  tenths  of  the  talk  of 
evolutionists  is  sheer  nonsense,  not  founded  on  observation,  and 
wholly  unsupported  by  fact.  Men  adopt  a  theory,  and  then  strain 
their  facts  to  support  it.  I  read  all  their  books,  but  they  make  no  im- 
pression on  my  belief  in  the  stability  of  species.  Moreover,  the  talk 
of  the  great  antiquity  of  man  is  of  the  same  value.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  a  fossil  man.  I^Ion  are  ready  to  regard  you  as  a  fool  if  you 
do  not  go  with  them  in  all  their  vagaries  ;  but  this  museum  is  full  of 
proofs  of  the  utter  falsity  of  their  views.'  "  {Central  Presbyterian, 
September  IGth,  1885.) 


EVOLL'TION.  89 

hypothesis  in  this  form  I  will  not  nndertake  to  say,  but 
will  give  the  reader  his  statement  of  his  belief  in  his  own 
w^ords.  In  liis  New  York  Lectures  he  writes  :  "  The 
hypothesis  of  evolution  supposes  that,  at  any  compara- 
tively late  period  of  past  time,  our  imaginary  spectator  " 
(he  had  previously  written,  "  I  will  ask  you  to  iioagine 
what  would  have  been  visible  to  a  spectator  of  the  events 
which  constitute  tlie  history  of  the  earth")  '^  would  meet 
with  a  state  of  things  very  similar  to  that  which  now 
obtains  ;  but  that  the  likeness  of  the  past  to  the  present 
wonld  gradually  become  less  and  less  in  proportion  to 
the  remoteness  of  his  period  of  observation  from  the 
present  day  ;  that  the  existing  distribution  of  mountains 
and  plains,  of  rivers  and  seas,  would  show  itself  to  be 
the  product  of  a  slow  process  of  natural  change,  operat- 
m<y  upon  more  and  more  widely  different  antecedent 
conditions  of  the  mineral  framework  of  the  earth,  until, 
at  length,  in  place  of  that  framework,  he  would  behold 
only  a  vast  nebulous  mass,  representing  the  constituents 
of  the  sun  and  of  the  planetary  bodies.  Preceding  the 
forms  of  life  which  now  exist,  our  observer  would  see 
animals  and  plants  not  identical  with  them,  but  like  them, 
becoming  simpler  and  simpler,  until  finally  the  w^orld 
of  life  would  present  nothing  but  that  undifferentiated 
protoplasmic  matter  wliicli,  so  far  as  our  present  knowl- 
edo-e  ffoes,  is  the  common  foundation  of  all  vital  ac- 
tivity." 

"  The  hypothesis  of  evolution  supposes  that  in  all  this 
vast  progression  there  would  be  no  breach  of  continuity, 
no  point  at  which  we  could  say,  '  This  is  a  natural  proc- 
ess,' and,  '  This  is  not  a  natural  process,'  but  that  the 
whole  might  be  compared  to  that  wonderful  process  of 
development  which  may  be  seen  going  on  every  day 
under  our  eyes,  in  virtue  of  which  there   arises,  out  of 


90  NATURE    AXD    REVELATION. 

the  semifluid,  comparatively  liomogeneons  substance 
which  we  call  an  egg^  the  complicated  organization  of 
one  of  the  higher  animals.  This,  in  a  few  words,  is 
what  is  meant  by  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  ;"  and  in 
the  same  lecture  he  writes  :  ''  We  have  come  to  look 
upon  the  present  as  the  child  of  the  past  and  as  the  parent 
of  the  future  ;  and  as  we  have  excluded  chance  from  a 
place  in  the  universe,  so  we  ignore,  even  as  a  possibility, 
the  notion  of  any  interference  with  the  order  of  nature." 
{''  New  York  Lectures  on  Evolution,"  Lecture  L) 

This,  if  it  be  not  formal  atheism,  is  virtual  atheism  ; 
and  such  Professor  Clitford,  of  England,  who  had  adopted 
evolution  in  this  form,  found  it  ;  and  on  his  dying-bed 
gave  utterance  to  ''  the  inexpressibly  mournful  thoughts 
— "  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  theistic  idea  is  a  com- 
fort and  a  solace  to  those  who  hold  it,  and  that  the  loss 
of  it  is  a  very  painful  loss.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  at 
least  by  many  of  us  in  this  generation,  who  have 
received  it  in  our  childhood,  and  have  parted  from  it 
since  with  such  searching  trouble  as  only  cradle-faiths 
can  cause.  We  have  seen  the  spring  sun  shine  out  of 
an  empty  heaven  to  light  up  a  soulless  earth  ;  we  have 
felt  with  utter  loneliness  that  the  Great  Companion  is 
dead."     {Christian  Tliougid^  vol.  1,  p.  86.) 

§  35.   llelation  of  lievelation  to  Evolution  as  taiigJit  hy 

Charles  Darwin. 

Respecting  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  as  taught  hy 
Charles  Darwin^  heginning  loith  certain  prvmordiaX 
limng  foynns^  and  including  man  in  its  range,  1  re- 
mark : 

1.  It  is  plainly  irreconcilable  vritli  the  Bible  account 
of  the  origin  of  man — "  And  God  said,  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  own  image,  after  our  likeness  ;  and  let  them 


EVOLUTIOISr.  91 

have  dominion  over  tlie  lisli  of  tlic  sea,  and  over  tlie  fowl 
of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  overall  the  earth,  and 
over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  eartli. 
So  God  created  man  in  His  own  image,  in  the  image  of 
God  created  He  him  ;  male  and  female  created  He  them. " 
(Gen.  1  :  26,  27.)  "  And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of 
the  dnst  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul.  .  .  .  And 
the  Lord  God  cansed  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon  Adam, 
and  he  slept  ;  and  He  took  one  of  his  ribs,  and  closed  np 
the  flesh  instead  thereof.  And  the  rib,  which  the  Lord 
God  had  taken  from  man,  made  He  a  woman,  and 
brought  her  unto  the  man."  (Gen.  2  :  7,  21,  22.) 
Compare  this  with  the  account  of  the  origin  of  man 
given  by  Darwin  (quoted  in  §  28),  and  I  think  the  reader 
will  admit  that  by  no  fair  interpretation  can  these  two 
accounts  be  made  to  harmonize  one  with  the  other. 

2.  And  Darwin  does  not  help  the  case  wdien  he  writes  : 
*'  When  I  view  all  beings  not  as  special  creations,  but  as 
the  lineal  descendants  of  some  few  beings  who  lived  long 
before  the  tirst  bed  of  the  Silurian  system  was  deposited, 
they  seem  to  me  to  become  ennobled."  ("  Origin  of 
Species,"  p.  43G.)  It  is  not  length  of  ancestry  alone 
which  ennobles,  but  cliaracter  as  well.  And  of  such  a 
genealogy  as  that  which  Darwin  claims  for  himself —a 
genealogy  which  reads  :  man  which  was  the  son  of  a  long- 
tailed,  sharp- eared  monkey,  wdn'ch  was  the  son  of  an 
opossum,  which  was  the  son  of  a  lizard,  which  was  the 
son  of  a  fish,  which  was  the  son  of  a  sea-quirt— I  cannot 
but  think  the  more  a  man  has  of  it,  the  worse  off  will 

lie  be. 

3.  Darwin  speaks  of  evolution  as  simjDly  ^'  a  mode  of 
creation, ^^  and  so  cannot  be  charged  w^ith  formal  athe- 
ism.    And   yet   he   teaches   that   evolution   is   effected 


92  NATURE    AND    IIEVELATION. 

tlirough  ^'  natural  selection  ;"  and  in  explaining  this 
phrase,  he  writes  :  ''  It  is  difficult  to  avoid  personifying 
nature  ;  but  I  mean  by  nature  only  the  aggregate  action 
and  product  of  many  natural  laws  ;  and  by  laws,  the 
sequence  of  events  as  ascertained  by  us."  ("  Origin  of 
Species,"  cli.  4.)  After  reading  this,  one  will  not  be 
surprised  at  the  statement  made  recently  by  the  Duke  of 
Argyll,  in  a  public  lecture  in  Glasgow  :  "In  the  last  year 
of  his  life  Mr.  Darwin  did  me  the  honor  of  calling  upon 
me  in  London,  and  I  had  a  long  and  interesting  conversa- 
tion with  that  distinguished  observer  of  nature.  In  the 
course  of  conversation  I  said  it  was  impossible  to  look 
at  the  wonderful  processes  of  nature  which  he  had 
observed  without  seeing  that  they  were  the  effect  and 
expression  of  mind.  I  shall  never  forget  Mr.  Darwin's 
answer.  He  looked  at  me  hard  and  said  :  ^  Well,  it  often 
comes  over  me  with  overpowering  force,  but  at  other 
times  (and  he  shook  his  head)  it  seems  to  go  away.'" 
{Philadeljjhia  Presbyterian^  May  16th,  1885.)^^ 

"  The  faith  expressed  by  these  chief  representatives 
of  evolution"  (Huxley,  Haeckel  and  Spencer)  "is 
evidently,  if  faith  at  all,  faith  at  its  minimum,  even  in 

*  The  following  letter  was  written  by  Darwin,  a  sliort  time  before 
his  death,  to  a  student  at  Jena,  in  whose  mind  the  study  of  Darwin's 
book  had  raised  religious  difficulties,  and  who  wrote  to  him  on  the 
subject  : 

"  SiE  :  I  am  very  busy,  and  am  an  old  man  in  delicate  health,  and 
have  not  time  to  answer  your  questions  fully,  even  assuming  that 
they  are  capable  of  being  answered  at  all.  Science  and  Christ  have 
nothing  to  do  with  each  other,  excejjt  in  as  far  as  the  habit  of  scien- 
tific investigation  makes  a  man  cautious  about  accepting  any  proof. 
As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  do  not  believe  that  any  revelation  has  ever 
been  made.  With  regard  to  a  future  life,  every  one  must  draw  his 
own  conclusions  from  vague  and  contradictory  probabilities.  Wish- 
ing you  well,  I  remain  your  obedient  servant,  Charles  Darwin." 
{Christian  Thoiujld,  vol.  1,  p.  100.) 


EVOLUTION".  93 

Darwin.  Between  his  God  of  half  an  eternity  ago, 
who  woke  just  long  enough  to  breathe  life  into  a  few 
material  forms  or  only  one,  and  then  fell  once  more  into 
a  slumber  so  deep  that  it  has  not  been  broken  since,  and 
the  no-God  of  Haeckel,  and  the  mysterious  It  of 
Spencer,  there  would  really  seem  to  be  not  much  to 
choose.  Himself  the  moving  principle  of  the  universe 
He  first  framed,  is,  we  suppose,  a  true  conception  ;  but 
this  is  not,  logically  and  necessarily  not,  the  Creator  of 
the  evolutionists.  According  to  them,  the  universe  is 
essentially  automatic  and  godless.  For  infinite  years  the 
Darwin  divinity  has  given  no  sign  of  his  existence,  is 
practically  non-existent,  has  ceased  to  be  contemporary  ; 
if  not  dead,  is  as  good  as  dead.  '  The  Great  Companion  ' 
is  not,  and  we  are  left  alone."  (Dr.  Coles,  in  Christian 
Thought,  vol.  2,  p.  428.) 

§  36.   Revelation  and  Evolution  as  Taught  ly  Di\ 

Woodrow. 

Br.  Woodrow  has  recently  advanced  a  modified  hy- 
2?othesis  of  evolution  as  it  applies  to  man,  attributing 
the  origin  of  7nan^s  body  to  evolution,  %ohile  his  soul  is 
the  product  of  immediate  creation.  His  own  words  are  : 
"'  There  would  seem  to  be  no  ground  for  attributing  a 
different  origin  to  man's  body  from  that  which  should 
be  attributed  to  animals  ;  if  the  existing  animal  species 
were  immediately  created,  so  was  man  ;  if  they  were 
derived  from  ancestors  unlike  themselves,  so  may  he 
have  been.  ...  As  regards  the  soul  of  man,  wdiich 
bears  God's  image,  and  which  differs  so  entirely  not 
merely  in  degree  but  in  kind  from  anytliing  in  the 
animals,  I  believe  that  it  was  immediately  created,  that 
we  are  here  so  taught  ;  and  1  have  not  found  in  science 
any  reason  to  believe  otherwise.     Just  as    t)^ere  is  no 


94  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

scientific  basis  for  the  belief  that  the  doctrine  of  deriva- 
tion by  descent  can  bridge  over  the  chasms  which  sepa- 
rate the  non-existent  from  the  existent,  and  the  inorganic 
from  the  organic,  so  there  is  no  such  basis  for  the  belief 
that  this  doctrine  can  bridge  over  the  chasm  which  sep- 
arates the  mere  animal  from  the  exalted  being  which  is 
made  in  the  image  of  God.  The  mineral  differs  from  the 
animal  in  kind,  not  merely  in  degree  ;  so  the  animal  dif- 
fers from  man  in  kind  ;  and  while  science  has  traced 
numberless  transitions  from  degree  to  degree,  it  has 
utterly  failed  to  find  any  indications  of  transition  from 
kind  to  kind  in  this  sense.  So  in  the  circumstantial  ac- 
count of  the  creation  of  the  first  woman,  there  are  what 
seem  to  me  insurmountable  obstacles  in  the  way  of  fully 
applying  the  doctrine  of  descent."  {Southern  Presby- 
terian Bevieio,  ISSl,  p.  356.)  And  subsequently  he 
adds  :  ''  The  more  fully  I  become  acquainted  with  the 
facts  of  which  1  have  given  a  faint  outline,  the  more  1 
am  inclined  to  believe  that  it  pleased  God,  the  Almighty 
Creator,  to  create  present  and  intermediate  organic  forms, 
not  immediately  but  mediately,  in  accordance  with  the 
general  plan  involved  in  the  liypothesis"  {i.e.^  evolution) 
*^  I  have  been  illustrating."  {Southern  Presbyterian 
Pevieio^  p.  306.) 

Eespecting  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  in  this  form,  1 
remark  : 

1.  It  is  unscientific  in  that  it  attributes  the  origin  of 
woman,  body  and  soul,  to  immediate  creation,  while 
man's  body  is  the  product  of  evolution.  In  the  view  of 
every  naturalist,  woman  is  half  the  species  homo — is 
half  the  man  ;  and  to  state  the  hypothesis  in  the  lan- 
guage of  science,  it  should  read  :  One  half  the  body  of 
man  is  the  product  of  evolution,  while  the  other  half, 
with  all  the  soul,  is  the  product  of  immediate  creation. 


EVOLUTION.  95 

Sucli  an  origin  as  this,  for  any  species  of  living  beings,  is 
without  precedent,  even  in  the  vrildest  sj^ecuktions  of 
scientists. 

2.  It  is,  I  thinh,  irreconcilable  with  the  account  of 
man's  creation  given  in  Scripture.  "  And  the  Lord  God 
formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into 
his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living 
soul. "  (Gen.  2:7.)  The  phrase  here  rendered  "  a  living 
soul,"  literally  rendered  is  "  an  animal  of  life" — i.e.,  a 
living  animal.  Jamieson,  in  his  commentary  on  this 
verse,  writes  :  "At  its  lirst  formation  the  body  of  man, 
so  exquisitely  organized,  was  no  more  than  a  mass  of 
inert  nuitter,  till  the  Lord  Giod  endowed  it  with  vitality, 
and  '  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  ' — liter- 
ally, lives  ;  but  though  in  the  plural  form,  it  is  commonly 
rendered,  life,  the  natural  or  organic  life,  as  the  phrase 
usually  denotes,  '  and  man  became  a  living  soul ' — liter- 
ally, an  animal  of  life  (see  v.  19,  ch.  1,  20,  24,  30  ; 
10  !  12,  15,  16,  where  the  word  is  used  in  this  sense) ;  and 
hence  Bishop  Warburton  paraphrases  the  passage  before 
us  in  the  following  manner  :  '  He  breathed  into  this 
statue  the  breath  of  life,  and  the  lump  of  clay  became  a 
living  creature.'  "  Dr.  McCosh  writes  :  ''  There  are  two 
accounts  of  the  creation  of  man  :  one  in  Gen,  1  :  26. 
There  is  counsel  and  decision  :  '  Let  us  make  man  in 
our  own  image.'  This  applies  to  his  soul  or  higher 
nature.  The  other  account  is  in  Gen.  2:7:'  And  the 
Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  ;  and  man 
became  a  living  soul.'  This  is  man's  organic  body." 
(McCosh  on  Development,  p.  35.) 

What  is  affirmed  in  Gen,  2  :  7  is  (1)  that  God  made 
the  inanimate  body  of  man  of  the  dust  of  the  grwind  ; 
and  then  (2)  by  a  special  act  imparted   animal   life  to 


96  IfATURE    AXD    REVELATION". 

tliat  inanimate  body.  The  product  of  evolution,  from 
the  veiy  nature  of  the  process,  "  descent  with  modifica- 
tion," is  a  liv^ing  thing,  possessed  at  the  least  of  animal 
life.  It  may  die  very  early,  but  at  its  beginning  it  must 
be  a  living  thing.  With  this  passage  before  us,  we  have 
the  alternative,  either  (1)  the  body  God  formed  w\as 
an  inanimate  bod}^  and  to  this  Re  imparted  animal  life, 
which  accords  well  vrith  Scripture  ;  but  there  is  no 
evolution  possible  here;  the  body  is  lifeless,  '^a  lump 
of  clay,"  and  life  has  to  be  imparted  by  a  special  act  of 
God  ;  or  (2)  the  body  God  formed  was  possessed  of 
animal  life,  to  which  lie  afterward  imparted  an  immortal 
soul,  which  accords  with  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  but 
is  irreconcilable  with  the  Scriptures,  rightly  interpreted. 

§  37.    Revelation  and   Evolution  in   its   most   Limited 

Range. 

The  hypothesis  of  evolution^  talcing  it  in  its  most 
limited  7'ange,  as  excluding  inorganic  nature  on  the  one 
hand,  and  so  recognizing  the  fact  that  a  great  gulf 
separates  between  the  non-living  and  the  living  ;  and 
excluding  also  man,  on  the  other  hand,  and  so  recogniz- 
ing the  fact  that  an  impassable  gulf  separates  the  brutes 
from  immortal  man,  '^  made  in  the  image  of  God,"  and 
understanding  it  as  simply  "a  mode  of  creation,"  can- 
not be  considered  atheistic.  Nor  is  it  irreconcilable,  as 
I  think,  with  the  Bible  account  of  the  origin  of  plants 
and  animals  in  the  world.  The  unfavorable  reception 
which  it  has  met  at  the  hands  of  Christian  men  generally 
is  owing,  if  I  mistake  not,  like  that  of  poor  Tray  in  the 
old  fable,  not  so  much  to  what  it  is  in  itself,  as  to  the 
company  in  which  they  found  it. 

Experience  would  seem  to  prove  that  the  tendency  of 
evolution,  in  the  minds  of  those  who  adopt  it,  is  to  foster 


EVOLUTION.  97 

tlie  conception  of  onr  world  as  "an  automatic  machine," 
running  itself  ;  and  of  God  as  a  being  afar  olf — a  concep- 
tion in  striking  contrast  with  that  conveyed  by  the  Script- 
ures— "  Behold  the  fowls  of  the  air,  for  they  sow  not, 
neither  do  they  reap,  nor  gather  into  barns  ;  yet  your 
Heavenly  Father  feedeth  them."  (Matt.  6  :  26.)  "  Are 
not  two  sparrows  sold  for  a  farthing  ?  and  one  of  them 
shall  not  fall  on  the  ground  without  your  Father.  But 
the  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered."  (Matt. 
10  :  29,  30.)  "  In  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our 
being."  (Acts  IT  :  28.)  It  certainly  seems  to  have  had 
this  effect  on  the  mind  of  Darwin,  as  is  evident  from  his 
words  addressed  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  quoted  in  §  35. 


TV. 

THE  MOSAIC   COSMOGONY. 

§  38.  A  Remarkable  Fad. 

'^  History  has  embalmed  for  ns,"  writes  Professor 
Huxley,  ''the  speculations  upon  the  origin  of  hving 
beings,  which  were  among  the  earliest  products  of  the 
dawning  intellectual  activity  of  man.  In  those  early 
days  positive  knowledge  was  not  to  be  had,  but  the  crav- 
ino-s  after  it  needed,  at  all  hazards,  to  be  satisfied,  and 
according  to  the  country,  or  the  turn  of  thought  of  the 
speculator,  the  suggestion  that  all  living  things  arose  from 
the  mud  of  the  Nile,  from  a  primeval  Qgg,  or  from  some 
more  anthropomorphic  agency,  afforded  a  sufficient  rest- 
ing-place for  his  curiosity.  The  myths  of  paganism  are 
as  dead  as  Osiris  or  Zeus,  and  the  man  who  should  revive 
them,  in  opposition  to  the  knowledge  of  our  time,  would 
justly  be  laughed  to  scorn  ;  but  the  coeval  imaginations 
current  among  the  rude  inhabitants  of  Palestine,  recorded 
by  writers  whose  very  name  and  age  are  admitted  by 
every  scholar  to  be  unknown,  have  unfortunately  not  yet 
shared  their  fate,  but  even  at  this  day  are  regarded  by 
nine  tenths  of  the  civilized  world  as  the  authoritative 
standard  of  fact  and  the  criterion  of  the  justice  of  scien- 
tific conclusions  in  all  that  relates  to  the  origin  of  things, 
and,  among  them,  of  species.  In  this  nineteenth  century, 
as  at  the  dawn  of  modern  physical  science,  the  cos- 
mogony of  the  semi-barbarous  Hebrew  is  the  incubus  of 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGONY.  99 

the  pliilosopher  and  the  opprobrium  of  the  orthodox. " 
(Huxley's  "  Lay  Sermons,"  pp.  277,  278.) 

When  Professor  Huxley  states  that  the  book  of 
Genesis — the  book  which  contains  "  the  cosmogony  of 
the  semi-barbarous  Hebrews" — as  he  calls  them — '^'is 
the  work  of  a  writer  whose  very  name  and  age  are  ad- 
mitted to  be  unknown,"  he  is  stepping  out  of  his  own 
department  of  natural  science,  in  which  he  deservedly 
ranks  high  as  a  teacher,  into  that  of  historical  and  literary 
criticism,  of  which,  1  doubt  not,  he  would  himself  con- 
fess that  he  knows  but  little."^  So  far  is  this  statement 
from  being  true,  that  I  hesitate  not  to  affirm  that  to-day 
nine  tenths  of  the  scholars  of  Great  Britain  and  America 
regard  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  as  better  established  than  that  of  any  other  book 
that  has  come  down  to  us  from  antiquity. 

On  the  other  point  which  his  statement  covers — viz. : 
the  estimate  in  which  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  is  held,  to- 
day, throughout  the  civilized  world,  falling  as  it  does 
within  the  department  of  natural  science,  there  is  no  one 
more  competent  to  express  an  opinion  than  he.  And  his 
statement,  that  while  ''the  myths  of  paganism  are  as 
dead  as  Osiris  or  Zeus,  and  that  the  man  who  would  re- 
vive them  in  opposition  to  the  knowledge  of  our  time 
would  be  justly  laughed  to  scorn,"  the  Mosaic  cosmog- 
ony "  has  not   shared    their  fate,  but  even  at  this  day 

*  "  We  ai'e  now  assured,  upon  the  authority  of  the  highest  critics, 
and  even  of  dignitaries  of  the  church,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Moses  wrote  the  book  of  Genesis,  or  knew  anything  about  it.  You 
will  understand  that  I  give  no  judgment— i^  would  be  an  impertinence 
upon  my  pari  to  volunteer  even  a  suggestion  upon  such  a  siOject.  But 
that  being  the  state  of  opinion  among  scholars  and  the  clergy,  it  is 
well  for  the  unlearned  iu  Hebrew  lore,  and  for  the  laitj',  to  avoid  en- 
tangling themselves  in  such  vexed  questions." — Huxley's  "  i\eto  York 
Lectures  on  Evolution,"  Lecture  L 


100  NATURE   AND    REVELATION". 

is  regarded  by  nine  tentlis  of  the  civilized  world  as  the 
authoritative  standard  of  fact,  and  the  criterion  of  the 
justice  of  scientific  conclusions,  in  all  that  relates  to  the 
origin  of  things,"  may  well  challenge  our  careful  consid- 
eration. If  this  be  true — and  we  believe  that  it  is  true 
— it  is  a  very  remarkable  fact  in  the  history  of  human 
thought  and  opinion  ;  and  it  becomes  us,  in  the  spirit  of 
a  sound  philosophy,  to  ask,  and  to  answer,  if  we  can, 
the  question.  Why  is  it,  that  while  the  cosmological 
speculations  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  Greeks,  the  two 
foremost  nations  of  antiquity,  have  come  to  be  univer- 
sally regarded  as  myths,  ''the  cosmogony  of  the  semi- 
barbarous  Hebrews,"  in  the  light  of  this  our  nineteenth 
century,  controls  the  thoughts  and  opinions  of  nine  tenths 
of  the  civilized  world  ?  History  has  a  philosophy  as  well 
as  nature  ;  and  for  so  remarkable  a  fact  as  this  there 
must  be  some  reason  ;  and  it  becomes  us,  in  entering 
upon  an  examination  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  to  ascer- 
tain, if  possible,  what  that  reason  is. 

The  strange  vitality — strange  in  the  estimation  of 
Professor  Huxley — of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  is  owing,  if 
I  mistake  not,  (1)  in  part,  to  its  intimate  connection 
with  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews — a  religion  which,  with 
variations  in  non-essentials  only,  has  lived  from  the  very 
beginning  of  human  history  down  to  the  present  day, 
and  which,  in  its  Christian  form,  is  the  religion  of  the 
nations  which  now  dominate  the  world.  Worshippers 
have  long  since  disappeared  from  the  temples  of  Osiris 
and  Zeus,  while  those  of  the  God  whom  Moses  served, 
and  in  advocacy  of  whose  worship  Genesis  was  written, 
are  now  more  thronged,  and  that  by  the  leaders  of  the 
world  s  civilization,  than  at  any  time  in  the  past  history 
of  our  race.  Not  only  does  Moses'  cosmogony  form  a 
part  of  the  book  in  which  this  religion  is  taught,  but  it 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  101 

stands  related  to  this  religion,  as  setting  forth  a  reason 
why  the  religion  assumes  the  particular  form  which  it 
does,  of  a  worship  of  Jehovah.  The  cosmogony  com- 
mences with  the  declaration,  ''  In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  on  which  Bishop  Pat- 
rick remarks  :  "  Designing  to  hang  the  whole  frame  of  his 
polity  upon  piety  toward  God,  and  to  make  the  Creator 
of  all  the  founder  of  his  laws,  he  begins  with  Ilim.  Kot 
after  the  manner  of  the  Egyptians  and  Phoenicians,  who 
bestowed  this  adorable  name  upon  a  great  multitude  ;  but 
he  puts  in  the  front  of  his  work  the  name  of  the  sole 
cause  of  all  things,  the  Maker  of  whatsoever  is  seen  or 
unseen  ;  .  .  .  .  whom  therefore  he  would  have  them 
look  upon,  not  only  as  the  enactor  of  their  laws,  but  of 
those  also  which  all  nature  obeys."  (Patrick's  ''  Com- 
mentary," ill  loc.)  Hence  it  cornes  that  Moses'  cos- 
mogony has  always  been  regarded  as  something  more 
than  a  mere  cosmogony — as  part  and  parcel  of  the  religion 
which  he  taught,  to  endure  as  long  as  that  religion  en- 
dures, to  be  reverently  believed  wherever  that  religion 
prevails. 

(2)  A  second  reason  for  the  vitality  of  the  Mosaic  cos- 
mogony is  to  be  found  in  the  nature  of  the  cosmogony 
itself.  Tlie  origin  of  all  living  things  in  the  mud  of  the 
Nile,  as  was  believed  among  the  Egjq^tians,  or  in  a  prim- 
itive Qgg,  according  to  Greek  mythology,  could  satisfy 
the  human  mind  in  a  condition  of  childhood  only.  The 
creation  of  all  things  by  an  Almighty  God  is  a  doctrine 
which  meets  every  demand  of  the  profoundest  philoso- 
phy, and  may  well  satisfy  man  in  his  maturity. 

§  39.   ^'Li  the  Beginning,'^  according  to  Hoses, 

The  Mosaic  cosmogony,  contained  in  the  first  and 
second  chapters  of  Genesis,  commences  with  the  declara- 


102  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

tion,  '^  In  the  heginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earthy 

"  In  the  heginning'^'' — i.e.^  in  tlie  beginning  or  at  the 
outset  of  the  work  of  creation  here  recorded.  John  in 
his  gospel,  doubtless  referring  to  this  language  of  Moses, 
and  intending  to  teach  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Word, 
writes:  ^^  In  the  beginning  i(;<^^  the  Word" — i.e.^  the 
Word  existed.  In  using  this  phrase  the  design  of  JVJoses 
seems  to  have  been  to  carry  back  the  mind  of  the  reader 
to  a  period  at  which  ''  the  heaven  and  the  earth"  began 
their  existence  ;  and  he  does  this  in  order  to  convey, 
upon  the  highest  authority,  the  assurance  that  they  had 
both  a  beginning  and  creator  ;  that  they  did  not  spring 
into  being  by  chance,  nor,  as  some  of  the  ancient  philoso- 
phers taught,  exist  from  eternity. 

*'  God  created^  The  word  here  rendered  ^'  created" 
does  not  necessarily  mean  to  make  out  of  nothing  ;  in- 
deed, in  so  far  as  1  know,  there  is  no  word  in  any  lan- 
guage which  has  invariably  such  a  meaning  ;  but  '''  that  a 
production  entirely  new,  a  really  creative  act,  is  related  in 
this  verse,  and  not  merely  a  renovation  or  reconstruction 
of  old  and  previously  existing  materials  is  evident,  not 
only  from  the  whole  subsequent  context,  but  from  the 
summary  of  the  processes  described  in  the  subsequent 
narrative,  where  a  different  word  is  used,  denoting 
*  made,'  '  reconstructed,'  '  arranged.'  (Ch.  2  :  8,  with 
Ex.  20  :  11.)  The  first  term  signifies  to  bring  into 
being  ;  the  other  points  only  to  a  new  collocation  of  mat- 
ter already  in  existence.  .  .  .  On  these  grounds  we 
are  warranted  in  considering  the  sacred  historian  to  have 
selected  the  terms  he  has  employed  for  the  special  pur- 
pose of  intimating  an  actual  creation  out  of  nothing." 
(Jamieson's  '^  Commentary,"  in  loo.) 

' '  The  heaven  and  the  earth, "     There  is  no  single  word 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGONY.  103 

in  tlie  Hebrew  language  corresponding  to  our  English 
wov^  universe.  Tlie  phrase  "  the  heaven  and  the  earth" 
is  the  nearest  equivalent  to  it,  and  is  here  doubtless  used 
to  signify  the  whole  system  of  which  our  earth  forms  a 
part  :  the  sun,  the  planets  with  tlieir  satellites,  and  the 
fixed  stars,  with  all  that  belong  to  them.  So  Moses 
understood  the  expression,  for  he  afterward  wrote  : 
*'  The  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that 
in  them  is."  (Ex.  20  :  11.)  The  Jewish  commentators 
interpret  it  as  denoting  '*  the  heavens  with  all  tliey  con- 
tain, and  the  earth  with  all  that  belongs  to  it."  Tlieo- 
philus,  one  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  writes  :  ''  The 
heavens  are  mentioned  before  the  earth,  to  show  that 
God's  works  are  not  like  ours  ;  for  He  begins  at  the  top, 
we  at  the  bottom — that  is.  He  first  made  the  fixed  stars 
and  all  that  belonged  to  them  (so  I  take  the  word  heaven 
here  to  signify),  for  they  had  a  beginning,  as  well  as  this 
lower  world,  though  they  do  not  seem  to  be  compre- 
hended in  the  six  days'  work,  which  relates  only  to  this 
planetary  world,  as  1  may  call  it,  which  hath  the  sun  for 
its  centre." 

§  40.   ^^In  the  Beginning ^"^"^  according  to  Science. 

In  this  opening  portion  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  there 
are  two  important  truths  taught  us — viz.:  (1)  ^' the 
heaven  and  the  earth,"  the  universe,  has  not  existed  from 
eternity,  but  had  a  beginning  ;  and  (2)  the  universe  in 
its  beginning  was  not  the  work  of  chance,  but  a  creation 
of  God.  On  both  these  points  science,  in  so  far  as  it  is 
able  to  speak  at  all,  confirms  the  cosmogony. 

1.  The  universe  had  a  heginning.  Geology,  basing 
its  conclusions  upon  observed  facts,  traces  back  the. his- 
tory of  our  earth  from  the  condition  in  which  it  now  is 
through  a  succession  of  changes,  to  be  beginnings  of  life 


104  NATURE   AJs'D    RETELATIOl!^. 

in  tlie  world  ;  and  then,  in  tlie  liglit  of  very  probable 
conjecture,  through  an  earlier  series  of  changes,  back  to 
what  must  be  regarded  as  the  beginning  of  the  universe 
itself.  About  the  time  occupied  in  all  these  changes 
there  is  room  for  great  difference  of  opinion  ;  and  so  no 
cautious  geologist  has  attempted  to  fix  that  time  as 
measured  by  years  ;  but  about  the  changes  themselves 
having  a  beginning  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion,  and 
no  room  for  difference. 

The  ''  new  astronomy,"  as  it  is  popularly  called — the 
astronomy  which  deals  especially  with  the  physical 
nature  and  structure  of  the  heavenly  bodies  as  they  are 
made  known  to  us  by  the  spectroscope  and  improved 
telescope — testifies  to  the  same  effect,  that  the  sun  and 
planets  have  all  had  a  beginning.  It  even  ventures  to 
attempt  to  fix  the  date  of  the  sun*s  beginning.  ^'We 
may  say,"  writes  Professor  Langley,  ''  with  something 
like  awe  at  the  meaning  to  which  science  points,  that 
the  whole  past  of  the  sun  cannot  have  been  over  eighteen 
million  years  ;  and  its  whole  future  radiation  cannot 
last  so  much  more.  Its  probable  life  is  covered  by 
about  thirty  million  years.  E'o  reasonable  allowance  for 
the  fall  of  meteors,  or  for  all  orther  known  causes  of  sup- 
ply, could  possibly  raise  the  whole  term  of  its  existence 
to  sixty  million  years.  This  is  substantially  Professor 
Young's  view."  (Professor  Langley,  in  the  Century  for 
December,  1884.) 

2.  The  tmiverse  is  not  the  work  of  chance^  hnt  a  crea- 
tion of  God.  Astronomy  testifies  to  a  wonderful  order 
pervading  the  universe,  mathematical  in  its  accuracy,  in 
so  far  as  the  bodies  astronomy  has  to  deal  with  are  con- 
cerned ;  zoology  and  botany  testify  to  an  equally  won- 
derful order  prevailing  throughout  the  kingdom  of  or- 
ganic nature — a  wonderful  adaptation  of  living  creatures 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGO]S'Y.  105 

to  their  environments,  and  of  tlie  parts  and  organs  of 
these  living  creatures  to  their  functions,  which  are 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  their  being  the  prod- 
uct of  chance.  Instead  of  countenancing  the  old  hy- 
pothesis of  ^^  the  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms,"  some 
ardent  scientists  manifest  a  disposition  to  run  to  the 
other  extreme.  Thus,  Professor  Huxley  writes  :  '^  The 
conception  of  the  constancy  of  the  order  of  nature  has 
become  the  dominant  idea  of  modern  thought.  To  per- 
sons familiar  with  the  facts  upon  wdiich  that  conception 
is  based,  and  competent  to  estimate  their  significance,  it 
has  ceased  to  be  conceivable  that  chance  should  have  any 
place  in  the  universe,  or  that  events  should  depend  upon 
any  but  the  natural  sequence  of  cause  and  effect.  We 
have  come  to  look  upon  the  present  as  the  child  of  the 
past  and  as  the  parent  of  the  future  ;  and  as  we  have 
excluded  chance  from  a  place  in  the  universe,  so  we 
ignore,  even  as  a  possibility,  the  notion  of  any  interfer- 
ence with  the  order  of  nature."  (Huxley's  "  New  York 
Lectures  on  Evolution,"  Lecture  I.)  Avoiding  this  ex- 
treme, the  thoughtful  scientist  of  to-day  may  exclaim, 
with  far  deeper  feeling  than  that  of  David  :  ''  1  am  fear- 
fully and  wonderfully  made  :  marvellous  are  thy  works  ; 
and  that  my  soul  knoweth  right  well."     (Ps.  139  :  14.) 

§  41.  Emergence  from  Chaos^  according  to  Moses. 

Moses  continues  his  cosmogony  with  the  record,  ' '  And 
the  earth  was  without  form,  and  void  {was  waste  and 
void,  jN^ew  Version)  ;  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face 
of  the  deep.  And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  {was 
hrooding  upon,  New  Version,  margin)  the  face  of  the 
waters.  And  God  said.  Let  there  be  light,  and  there 
was  light.  And  God  saw  the  light,  that  it  was  good  : 
and  God  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness.     And  God 


106  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

called  the  light  Day,  and  the  darkness  He  called  ]N"ight. 
And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day. 
{And  there  was  evening  and  there  ivas  morning,  one 
day,  New  Version.)     And    God   said,  Let   there  be  a 
firmament  {expanse,  New  Version,  margin)  in  the  midst 
of   the   waters,  and    let  it   divide  the  waters  from   the 
waters.     And  God  made  the  firmament,  and  divided  the 
waters  which  w^ere  under  the  firmament  from  the  waters 
wdiich  were  above  the  firmament  :  and  it  was  so.     And 
God  called  the  firmament  Heaven.     And  the  evening 
and  the   morning  were  the   second   day.     {And    there 
was  evening  and  there  was  morning,  a  second  day,  New 
Version.)     And   God   said.    Let  the  waters  under  the 
heaven  be  gathered  together  unto  one  place,  and  let  the 
dry  land  appear.     .     .     .     And  God  said,  Let  there  be 
lights  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven,  to  divide  the  day 
from   the  night  ;    and  let   them  be   for  signs,  and  for 
seasons,  and  for  days,  and  years  :  and  let  them  be  for 
lights  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven  to  give  light  upon 
the  earth  :   and  it  was  so.     And   God  made  two  great 
lights  ;  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser 
liffht  to  rule  the  nidit  :  He  made  the  stars  also.     And 
God  set  them  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven  to  give 
light   upon    the  earth,   and   to    rule   over  the  day  and 
over  the  night,  and  to  divide  the  light  from  the  dark- 
ness :  and  God  saw  that  it  w^as  good.     And  the  evening 
and  the  morning  were  the  fourth  day."     {And  there  was 
evening  and  there   was   morning,  a  fourth  day.  New 
Version.)     (Gen.  1  :  2-9,  14-19.)' 

On  the  expression  in  verse  2,  ''  And  the  spirit  of 
God  moved  xijpon  the  face  of  the  waters,"  Jamieson  re- 
marks :  ''  Our  English  version,  in  its  use  of  the  word 
moved,  does  not  give  the  meaning  correctly  ;  for  the 
word  in  the  original  does  not  convey  the  idea  of  pro- 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  107 

gressive  motion,  but  that  of  brooding  over — cherishing — ■ 
the  act  of  incubation  which  a  fowl  performs  when  hatch- 
ing its  eggs,  and  the  particular  form  of  the  verb  implies 
a  continuance  of  this  action.  It  was  not  the  self-develop- 
ment of  powers  inherent  in  matter.  The  creative  move- 
ment was  made  by  the  will  of  God  ;  and  as  if  to  refute 
the  doctrine  of  Pantheism,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the 
action  was  not  in  but  iijpon  the  face  of  the  waters.**' 
(Jamieson's  ""  Commentary,"  in  loc.) 

On  the  expression  in  verse  3,  "  Let  there  be  light," 
Jamieson  remarks  :  "  It  is  deserving  of  particular  notice 
that  the  substantive  verb  is  used  here,  and  not  either  the 
words  *  create  '  or  '  made.'  It  was  the  manifestation  of 
what  had  been  previously  in  existence — Let  light  be,  or, 
rather.  Light  shall  be,  not  the  formation  of  an  ele- 
ment, or  matter,  which  had  no  being  at  all  till  the  divine 
command  was  issued.  .  .  .  Where  all  had  been  in- 
volved in  darkness,  there  was  an  alternation  of  light  ; 
and  as  unbroken  gloom  had  reigned  previous  to  this 
happy  change,  so,  in  describing  the  physical  arrange- 
ment that  was  now  established,  this  natural  sequence  is 
preserved,  and  the  evening  is  reckoned  before  the  morn- 
ing."    (Jamieson's  '^  Commentary,"  in  loo.) 

§  42.  Emergence  from  Chaos  ^  according  to  Science. 

This  record  of  Genesis  is  evidently  written  in  the  lan- 
guage of  common  life,  as  contradistinguished  from  the 
more  exact  language  of  science  ;  it  speaks  of  things  as 
they  appear,  and  not  necessarily  as  they  really  are.     (See 

In  the  portion  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  now  before 
us  there  are  two  important  truths — important  as  parts 
of  a  cosmogony — stated,  in  both  of  which  science  con- 
lirms  the  statement  of  Moses — viz. :  (1)  The  earliest  con- 


108  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

dition  of  our  earth  was  that  commonly  spoken  of  as  a 
chaos,  from  which  the  present  cosmos  has  gradually 
emerged  ;  and  (2)  the  existence  of  light  before  the  sun 
ajDpeared. 

1.  That  the  original  condition  of  our  earth  was  that 
of  a  chaos,  all  geologists  are  agreed.  That  the  earth 
was  once  a  confused  mass  of  air  and  earth  and  water, 
destitute  of  life,  and  incapable  of  supporting  it,  even  in 
its  lowest  forms — a  condition  aptly  described  by  the 
words  "  waste  and  void  "  and  with  ''  darkness  upon  the 
face  of  the  deep,"  is  one  of  the  settled  conclusions  of 
the  science  of  our  day.  That  from  this  chaotic  con- 
dition of  the  earth  our  cosmos — i.e.,  our  earth  in  all  its 
beautiful  order — has  gradually  emerged,  is  a  conclusion 
equally  well  settled.  The  very  term  cosmogony — ^.^., 
the  generation  of  the  cosmos,  implies  this.  ''  That  the 
present  is  the  child  of  the  past,"  is  as  true  of  the  earth 
itself  as  of  each  of  the  nations  inhabiting  its  surface. 
The  general  order  of  this  emergence,  as  Moses  describes 
it,  is  that  adopted  by  all  geologists  as  the  result  of  their 
study  of  nature — viz. :  the  separation  of  the  waters  thence- 
forth to  be  suspended  in  the  atmosphere  from  those  that 
are  to  remain  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth,  followed 
by  a  separation  of  the  waters  upon  the  earth's  surface, 
and  the  gathering  together  of  them  into  seas,  that  the  dry 
land  might  ap})ear  ;  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  the 
setting  of  the  sun  in  the  heavens  to  rule  over  the  day. 

2.  The  existence  of  light  before  the  sun  appeared. 
This  is  a  very  remarkable  statement,  especially  if  we 
regard  it  as  the  statement  of  "  a  semi-barbarous  Hebrew,' ' 
made  amid  '^  the  dawning  intellectual  activity  of  man." 
Nothing  like  it  is  to  be  found  among  the  cosmological 
speculations  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  or  Greeks  ;  and 
less  than  a  century  ago  it  was  urged  as  an  objection  to 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGONY.  109 

the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  that  it  taught  a  doctrine  at  vari- 
ance with  the  established  order  of  nature— viz.:  the 
existence  of  hght  before  the  sun — the  one  great  source 
of  all  natural  light. 

Now,  many  geologists,  adopting  an  hypothesis  orig- 
inally proposed  by  Lamarck,  tell  us  that  our  whole  solar 
system  once  existed  as  a  nebulous  mass  of  widely  dif- 
fused luminous  ''  star-dust,"  from  which  our  sun,  with 
all  its  attendant  planetary  bodies,  have  been  evolved  in 
the  course  of  ages  ;  so  that  light  must  have  existed  long 
before  the  heat  with  which  it  is  correlated  in  nature 
would  suffer  any  portion  of  the  nebulous  mass  to  con- 
dense into  a  comparatively  solid  body  like  the  sun. 

Whether  we  adopt  this  hypothesis  or  not,  all  geolo- 
gists agree  that  there  must  have  been  a  period  in  the 
early  history  of  our  earth — its  period  of  chaotic  exist- 
ence, when  light  from  the  sun  could  not  have  reached 
its  surface,  but  ''  darkness  must  have  been  upon  the  face 
of  the  deep  ;"  and  that  this  was  followed  by  a  second 
period — the  period  occupied  in  the  separation  of  "  the 
waters  which  were  under  the  firmament  from  the  waters 
which  were  above  the  firmament,"  and  the  subsequent 
*' gathering  together  the  waters  under  the  heavens  into 
one  place,  so  that  the  dryland  might  appear,"  during 
which  light  from  the  sun  could  reach  the  earth's  surface 
in  the  form  of  diffused  daylight  only.  Not  until  these 
changes  were  complete  could  the  sun  and  moon  appear, 
and  begin  to  "be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for 
days,  and  years."  It  is  true  that  the  teachings  of  geol- 
ogy on  this  point  can  as  yet,  on  scientific  grounds 
alone,  be  considered  as  nothing  better  than  very  prob- 
able theory  ;  yet  it  is  theory  so  probable  as  to  command 
the  universal  assent  of  geologists.  And  so  we  but  state 
a  fact  when  we  say  that  modern  science,  in  so  far  as 


110  NATURE   Al!fD    REVELATION. 

science  has  anything  to  say  in  the  case,  confirms  the  cos- 
mogony of  Moses  on  a  point  at  which  it  was  once  thought 
to  be  at  variance  with  the  established  order  of  nature. 

§  43.   The  Creation  of  Plants  and  Animals^  according 

to  Moses. 

Moses'  account  of  the  origin  of  living,  organized 
beings,  plants,  and  animals  is  in  the  following  words— 
viz.:  *'And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass, 
the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit  tree  yielding  fruit 
after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  itself,  upon  the  earth  :  and 
it  was  so.  And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass,  and  herb 
yielding  seed  after  his  kind,  and  the  tree  yielding  fruit, 
whose  seed  was  in  itself,  after  his  kind  ;  and  God  saw 
that  it  was  good.  And  the  evening  and  the  morning 
were  the  third  day.  {And  there  was  evening  and  there 
was  morning^  a  third  day,  New  Version.)  .  .  . 
And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abundantly  the 
moving  creature  that  hath  life  {swarm  with  swarms  of 
livijig  creatures,  New  Version,  margin)  and  fowl  that 
may  fly  above  the  earth  in  the  open  firmament  of  heaven. 
And  God  created  great  whales  {the  great  sea-7no7isters, 
New  Version)  and  every  living  creature  that  moveth, 
which  the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly,  after  their 
kind,  and  every  winged  fowl  after  his  kind  :  and  God 
saw  that  it  was  good.  And  God  blessed  them,  saying, 
Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  fill  the  waters  in  the  seas, 
and  let  fowl  multiply  in  the  earth.  •  And  the  evening 
and  the  morning  were  the  fifth  day.  {A?id  there  was 
evening  and  there  was  morning,  a  fifth  day.  New 
Version.)  And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the 
living  creature  after  his  kind,  cattle,  and  creeping  thing, 
and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind  :  and  it  was  so.  And 
God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind,  and  cattle 


THE    MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  Ill 

after  their  kind,  and  everything  that  creepeth  upon  the 
earth  after  his  kind:  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good." 
(Gen.  1  :  11-13,  20-25.) 

This  account  of  the  creation  of  plants  and  animals  is 
worthy  our  attention  in  the  following  particulars — viz. : 
(1)  It  is  a  creation  out  of  pre-existing  materials,  and  not, 
like  that  of  the  universe,  out  of  nothing  ;  (2)  the  origin 
of  life,  like  the  origin  of  matter,  is  traced  directly  to  God 
himself  ;  (3)  that  special  provision  is  made  that  each 
several  kind  of  plant  and  animal  shall  continue  its  kind 
by  natural  generation  ;  (1)  that  plants  and  animals  are 
brought  into  being  not  singly,  nor  in  pairs,  but  in  great 
numbers  ;  and  (5)  that  this  creation  is  said  to  have  been 
effected  in  a  certain  order.  What  is  the  testimony  of 
science  on  these  several  points  ? 

§  41.   The  Creation  of  Plants  and  Animals^  according 

to  Science. 

1.  As  to  the  creation  of  ^plants  and  animals  out  of 
"pre-existing  materials.  Chemistry  declares  that  plants 
and  animals  to-day  derive  all  their  materials  from  the 
inorganic  world.  Different  as  the  proximate  elements 
of  organic  nature,  such  as  lignine,  sugar,  gelatine,  are 
from  those  of  inorganic  nature,  its  ultimate  elements, 
such  as  oxygen,  hydrogen,  carbon,  are  the  same  ;  and  im- 
possible as  it  may  be  for  the  chemist  to  form  these 
proximate  elements  out  of  such  materials  in  his  labora- 
tory, we  know  that  they  are  continually  being  thus 
formed  in  the  organisms  of  living  plants  and  animals, 
under  the  operation  of  that  mysterious  something  we  call 
life. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  the  spontaneous  generation  of  Ufe, 
once  earnestly  defended  hy  iniany  scientists^  is  7iow 
universally    abandoned.      On    this    subject     Professor 


112  NATURE    AND    REVELATION". 

Drummond  writes  :  '^  What  essentially  is  involved  in  say- 
ing that  there  is  no  spontaneous  generation  of  life  ?     It 
is  meant  that  the  passage  from  the  mineral  world  to  the 
plant  or   animal    world   is   hermetically   sealed    on   the 
mineral  side.     This  inorganic  world  is  staked  off  from 
the  living  world  by  barriers  which  have  never  yet  been 
crossed  from  within,     ^o  change  of  substance,  no  modi- 
fication  of  environments,  no  chemistry,  no  electricity, 
nor  any  form  of  energy,  nor  any  evolution,  can  endow 
any  single  atom  of  the  mineral  world  with  the  attribute 
of  life.     Only  by  the  bending  down  into  the  dead  world 
of  some  living  form  can  these  dead  atoms  be  gifted  with 
the  properties  of  vitality  ;  without  this  prehminary  con- 
tact with  life  they  remain  fixed  in  the  inorganic  sphere 
forever.     It  is  a  very  mysterious  law  wdiich  guards  in 
this  way  the  portals  of  the  living  world.     And  if  there 
is  one  thing  in  nature  more  worthy  of  pondering  for  its 
strangeness  than  another,  it  is  the  spectacle  of  this  vast 
helpless  world  of  the  dead,  cut  off  from  the  Hving  by  the 
law  of  biogenesis,  and  denied  forever  the  possibility  of 
resurrection  within  itself.     So  very  strange  a  thing,  in- 
deed, is  this  broad  line  in  nature,  that  science  has  long 
and  urgently  sought  to  obliterate  it.     Biogenesis  stands 
in  tlie  way  of  some  forms  of  evolution  with  such  stern 
persistence  that  the  assaults  upon  this  law  for  number 
and  thoroughness  have  been  unparalleled.     But  as  we 
have  said,  it  has  stood  the  test.     Nature,  to  the  modern 
eye,  stands  broken  in  two.     The  physical  laws  may  ex- 
plain the  inorganic  world  ;  the  biological  law  may  account 
for  the  development  of  the  organic  ;  but  of  the  point 
where  they  meet,  of  the  strange  border-land  between  the 
dead  and  the  living,  science  is  silent.     It  is  as  if  God  had 
placed  everything  in  eartli  and  heaven  in  the  hands  of 
nature,  but  had  reserved  a  point  at  the  genesis  of  life 


THE    MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  113 

for  His  direct  appearing."  (''Natural  Law  in  the 
Spiritual  World,"  pp.  68,  69.)     See  §  27. 

3.  According  to  Hoses,  at  their  creation  special 
provision  was  made  that  each  several  hind  of  plant  and 
animal  shoidd  continue  its  kind  hy  natural  generation. 
On  this  point  science,  long  at  variance  with  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony,  is  now  in  harmony  therewith.  Professor 
Huxley  writes  :  "  As  regards  the  second  problem  offered 
to  us  hy  Redi,  whether  xenogenesis  obtains  side  by  side 
with  homogenesis,  whether,  that  is,  there  exists  not  only 
the  ordinary  living  things  giving  rise  to  offspring  which 
run  through  the  same  cycle  as  themselves,  but  also  others, 
producing  offspring  which  are  of  a  totally  different 
character  from  themselves,  the  reseaches  of  two  centu- 
ries have  led  to  a  different  result.  That  the  grubs  found 
in  galls  are  no  product  of  the  plants  upon  which  the  galls 
grow,  but  are  the  result  of  the  introduction  of  the  eggs 
of  insects  into  the  substance  of  the  plants,  was  made  out 
by  Yallisnieri,  Raumer,  and  others  before  the  end  of 
the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  tape-worms, 
bladder- worms,  and  flukes  continued  to  be  a  stronghold 
of  the  advocates  of  xenogenesis  for  a  much  longer 
period.  Indeed,  it  is  only  within  the  last  thirty  years 
that  the  splendid  patience  of  Yon  Siebold  and  other 
helminthologists  has  succeeded  in  tracing  every  such 
parasite,  often  through  the  strangest  wanderings  and 
metamorphoses,  to  an  ^^^  derived  from  a  parent  actually 
or  potentially  like  itself  ;  and  the  tendency  of  inquiries 
elsewhere  has  all  been  in  the  same  direction."  ("  Lay 
Sermons,"  p.  367.) 

Subsequently  speaking  of  the  pebrine — i.e.,  the  disease 
which  attacked  the  silk-worm,  and  for  a  time  threatened 
the  destruction  of  the  silk  culture  in  France  a  few  years 
ago,  he  writes;   "Such  being  the  facts  respecting  the 


114  KATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

pebrine,  what  are  the  indications  as  to  the  method  of  pre- 
venting it  ?  It  is  obvious  that  this  depends  upon  the 
way  in  which  the  panhistophyton" — the  parasite  which 
causes  the  pebrine— "is  generated.  If  it  may  be  gen- 
erated by  abiogenesis  or  by  xenogenesis  within  the  silk- 
worm or  its  moth,  the  extirpation  of  the  disease  must 
depend  upon  the  prevention  of  the  occurrence  of  the 
conditions  under  which  this  generation  takes  place.  But 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  panhistophyton  is  an  indepen- 
dent organism,  vrhich  is  no  more  generated  by  the  silk- 
worm than  the  mistletoe  is  generated  by  the  oak  or  ap- 
ple-tree on  which  it  grows,  though  it  may  need  the  silk- 
worm for  its  development  in  the  same  way  as  the  mistle- 
toe needs  the  tree,  then  the  indications  are  totally  differ- 
ent. The  sole  thing  to  be  done  is,  to  get  rid  of  and  keep 
away  the  germs  of  the  panhistophyton.  As  might  be 
imagined  from  the  course  of  his  previous  investigations, 
M.  Pasteur  was  led  to  believe  that  the  latter  was  the  right 
theory  ;  and  gaided  by  that  theory,  he  devised  a  method 
of  extirpating  the  disease  which  has  proved  to  be  com- 
pletely successful  wherever  it  has  been  properly  carried 
out."  ("Lay  Sermons,"  p.  375.)  In  the  case  of  the 
higher  forms  of  plant  and  animal  life,  that  the  offspring 
was  the  product  of  a  parent  like  itself  has  been  long 
known  and  universally  admitted.  That  this  same  law 
obtains  among  the  lower  orders,  even  the  lowest,  science 
has  now  demonstrated. 

4.  According  to  Moses,  'plants  and  animals,  with  the 
exception  of  man,  were  not  hrought  into  heing  as  single 
indvciduals,  or  as  pairs  at  the  most,  but  when  God 
spake  He  said  :  "  Let  the  waters  swarm  with  swarms  of 
livino:  creatures."  The  result  of  such  a  work  of  creation 
was  at  once  to  people  the  air,  the  earth,  and  seas  with 
many  individuals  or  pairs  of  every  species   intended  to 


THE    MOSAIC    COSMOGOITY.  115 

inhabit  tliem.  To  such  a  creation  as  this  the  fossiliferous 
rocks  testify.  Not  at  one  point  on  the  earth's  surface 
only  does  a  particular  species  appear,  but  at  many  points 
at  the  same  time,  and  these  points  far  distant  from  each 
other.  The  wide  distribution  of  certain  species  possess- 
ing httle  or  no  power  of  locomotion — e.g.^  the  oyster,  at 
the  present  day,  furnishes  a  serious  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  the  evolutionist  (§  30).  And  when  we  go  back  and 
find  this  wide  distribution  existing  from  the  beginning, 
the  difficulty  becomes  almost  insurmountable. 

5.  The  Mosaic  cosmogony  presents  us  with  a  certain 
order  of  creation — viz.:  (1)  "  Grass,  herbs,  and  trees" — 
i.e.^  the  vegetable  kingdom,  and  this  before  the  sun, 
moon,  and  stars  were  '^  set  in  the  firmament  of  heaven 
to  give  hght  upon  the  earth  ;"  (2)  fishes,  including  all 
the  numerous  inhabitants  of  the  waters,  together  with 
^'  great  sea-monsters,"  and  ^'  birds,"  or  flying  creatures, 
including  insects  ;  (3)  ''  cattle,  and  creeping  things,  and 
beasts  of  the  earth." 

Plants  alone  are  capable  of  feeding  directly  upon  inor- 
ganic matter.  Animals,  although  the  ultimate  composi- 
tion of  their  food  is  the  same  with  that  of  plants,  are 
incapable  of  digesting  that  food  until  it  has  under- 
gone the  preliminary  organization  which  it  acquires  in 
assuming  a  vegetable  form.  On  this  point  Professor 
Guyot  writes  :  "  The  most  important  function  of  the 
plant  in  the  economy  of  nature  is,  with  the  aid  of  the 
sun's  light,  to  turn  inorganic  into  organic  matter,  and 
thus  prepare  food  for  the  anim^al.  Nothing  else  in  nature 
does  this  important  work.  The  animal  cannot  do  it, 
and  starves  in  the  midst  of  an  abundance  of  the  materials 
needed  for  the  building  up  of  its  body.  .  .  .  The 
plant,  therefore,  is  the  indispensable  basis  of  all  animal 
life  ;  for  though  animals  partially  feed  upon  each  other, 


y 


116  NATURE   AXD    REVELATION. 

ultimately  tlie  organic  matter  they  need  mnst  come  from 
the  plant."  ("  Creation,"  pp.  88,  89.)  The  Paleozoic 
Ao-e,  when  the  crust  of  the  earth  was  so  much  warmer 
than  it  now  is  that  the  climate  of  Arctic  regions  was  tropi- 
cal, and  when  the  atmosphere  was  heavily  laden  w^ith 
w^atery  vapor  and  carbonic  acid,  was  the  age  of  a  gigantic 
ves-etation,  the  remains  of  which  constitute  onr  older 
coal-fields,  some  of  them  of  great  thickness  and  of  vast 
extent.  That  the  waters  were  swarming  with  inhabitants 
before  what  we  know  as  land-animals  appeared,  and, 
further,  that  great  sea-monsters  and  other  amphibious 
animals  preceded  "cattle  and  beasts  of  the  earth," 
geology  testifies  w^ith  equal  distinctness.  Thus  it  will  be 
seen  that  science  testifies  not  only  to  an  order  of  crea- 
tion, but  to  an  order,  iii  its  general  outline,  the  same 
with  that  given  by  Moses. 

When  Professor  Huxley  v/rites  :   "  The  oldest  fossils  in 
the  Silurian  rocks  are  exuvia  of  marine  animals  ;  and  if 
the  view  which  is  entertained  by  Principal  Dawson  and 
Dr.  Carpenter  respecting  the  nature  of  the  eozoon  {i.e.^ 
dawn-animal)  be  well  founded,  acpiatic  animals   existed 
at  a  period  as  far  antecedent  to  the  deposition  of  the 
coal  as  the  coal  is  from  us  ;  inasmuch  as  the  eozoon  is 
met  with  in  those   Laurentian  strata  which  lie  at   the 
bottom  of  the  series  of  stratified  rocks"  ('^  New  York 
Lectures  on  Evolution, "Lecture  I.),  and  would  have  us 
hence  infer  that  Moses  is  mistaken  in  representing  vege- 
table life  as  antecedent  to  animal  life  ;  he  forgets  "  the 
immense  deposits  of  carbon,"  in  the  form  of  graphite, 
'^  in  the  Laurentian,  which  would  seem  to  bespeak  a  pro- 
fusion of  plant  life  in  the  sea  or  on  the  land,  or  both, 
second  to  that  of  no  other  period  that  succeeded,  except 
that   of  the  great  coal  formation."     (Dawson's  "  Earth 
and  Man,"  p.  26.) 


THE    MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  117 

§  45.    The  Creation  of  Man ^  according  to  Moses, 

Moses'  account  of  the  creation  of  man  is  as  follows — ■ 
viz.:  '^  And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of 
life  ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul,"  literally,  a  creat- 
ure of  hfe,  or  living  creature.  "  And  the  Lord  God 
caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon  Adam,  and  he  slept  ; 
and  lie  took  one  of  his  ribs,  and  closed  up  the  flesh  in- 
stead thereof.  And  the  rib,  which  the  Lord  God  had 
taken  from  man,  made  He  a  woman,  and  brought  her 
unto  the  man.  And  Adam  said.  This  is  now  bone 
of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  :  she  shall  be  called 
Woman,  because  she  was  taken  out  of  man.  Therefore 
shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  shall 
cleave  unto  his  wife:  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh." 
(Gen.  2  :  7,  21-24.)  In  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  we 
have  this  additional  statement  respecting  the  creation  of 
man  :  '^  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness  :  and  let  them  have  dominion  over  the 
fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over 
the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth,  and  over  every  creep- 
ing thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth.  So  God  created 
man  in  Ilis  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  He 
him  ;  male  and  female  created  He  them.  And  God 
blessed  them,  and  God  said  unto  them.  Be  fruitful,  and 
multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it :  and 
have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that  moveth 
upon  the  earth."     (Gen.  1  :  26-28.) 

In  this  account  of  the  creation  of  man  there  are  four 
particulars  worthy  our  special  attention — viz. :  (1)  He  is 
the  last  made  of  the  inhabitants  of  our  earth  ;  and  wirli 
his   making  the  work  of   the    world's  creation  closes ; 


118  NATURE   AXD    EEVELATIOiq". 

(2)  in  his  creation  God  made  but  a  single  pair,  from 
whom  all  of  human  kind  must  have  descended  by  natural 
generation  ;  (3)  the  bodies  of  man  and  woman,  though 
made  alike  ouf  of  previously  existing  material,  are  made, 
that  of  man  out  of  ''  the  dost  of  the  ground  ;"  that  of 
woman  out  of  a  rib  taken  from  the  body  of  man  ;  and 
this  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  a  most  solemn  sanc- 
tion to  the  marriage  relation,  and  so,  in  the  human  race, 
establishing  the  family;  (4)  man  was  made  in  "the 
image  of  God,"  that  he  might  have  dominion  over  the 
work  of  God's  hands. 

§  46.   The  Creation  of  Man,  according  to  Science. 

1.  Ilan  is  the  last  made  of  the  inhabitants  of  earthy 
and  with  his  making  the  worh  of  creation  closes.  '^  And 
on  the  seventh  day  God  ended  His  worlv  which  He  had 
made  ;  and  He  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  His 
work  which  He  had  made."     (Gen.  2  :  2.) 

On  this  subject  the  Duke  of  Argyll  writes  :  "  The 
evidence  of  geology  has  always  been  that  among  all  the 
creatures  which  have  in  succession  been  formed  to  live 
upon  this  earth,  and  enjoy  it,  man  is  the  latest  born. 
This  great  fact  is  still  the  fundamental  truth  in  the  his- 
tory of  creation  ;  that  history,  as  geology  has  revealed 
it,  has  been  a  history  of  successive  creations  and  of  suc- 
cessive destructions,  old  forms  of  life  perishing  and  new 
forms  appearing,  so  that  the  whole  face  of  nature  has 
been  many  times  renewed.  But  until  very  lately  it  was 
supposed  that  these  vast  cycles  of  changes  had  been  finally 
completed  before  man  appeared.  And  as  regards  fresh 
creations,  this  supposition  is  still  supported  by  the  testi- 
mony of  science.  So  far  as  we  yet  know,  no  new  form 
of  life  has  been  created  since  the  highest  form  was  made. 
But  it  now  appears  that  since  that  event  many  old  forms 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGONY.  119 

have  died.     The  cycle  of  creation  Las  closed,  but  not  the 
cycle  of  destruction."    ('^  Primeval  Man,"  pp.  113, 114.) 

2.  Ill  his  creation  of  man  God  made  hut  a  single 
pair,  from  %oJiom  all  of  hitman  hind  must  have  de- 
scended hy  natural  generation.  The  unity  of  the 
human  race,  thus  clearly  asserted  by  Moses,  is  a  doctrine 
which,  within  the  last  fifty  years,  has  been  assailed  in 
such  a  way  as  to  lead  to  a  thorough  re-investigation  of 
the  whole  subject  by  some  of  the  leading  scientists  of  the 
day. 

Professor  Cabell  closes  an  exhaustive  examination  of 
the  whole  subject  with  the  words  :  ''  The  unity  of  the 
human  race  must  be  considered  a  fundamental  and  an 
accepted  truth.  Every  department  of  knowledge  has 
been  searched  for  evidence,  and  all  respond  with  an 
uniform  testimony.  The  physical  structure,  constitution, 
and  habits  of  the  race — the  mode  in  which  it  is  produced, 
in  which  it  exists,  in  which  it  perishes — everything  that 
touches  its  mere  animal  existence,  demonstrates  the 
absolute  certainty  of  its  unity,  so  that  no  other  general- 
ization of  physiology  is  more  clear  and  more  sure. 
Pising  one  step,  to  the  highest  manifestation  of  man's 
physical  organization — ^his  use  of  language  and  the  power 
of  connected  speech — the  most  profound  survey  of  this 
most  complex  and  tedious  part  of  knowledge  conducts 
the  inquirer  to  no  conclusion  more  indubitable  than  that 
there  is  a  common  origin,  a  common  organization,  a 
common  nature,  underlying  and  running  through  this 
endless  variety  of  a  common  power,  peculiar  to  the  race, 
and  to  it  alone.  Thus  a  second  science— philology — 
has  borne  its  marvellous  testimony.  Pising  one  more 
step,  and  passing  more  completely  to  a  higher  region, 
we  find  tlie  rational  and  moral  nature  of  men  of  every 
age   and   kindred   absolutely   the    same.     Those    great 


120  N"ATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

faculties  by  whicli  man  alone — and  yet  by  which  every 
man — perceives  that  there  is  in  things  that  distinction 
which  we  call  true  and  false,  and  that  other  distinction 
which  we  call  good  and  evil,  upon  which  distinctions 
and  which  faculties  rests  at  last  the  moral  and  intellect- 
ual destiny  of  the  entire  race,  belonging  to  us  as  men, 
without  which  Vve  are  not  men,  witli  which  we  are  the 
head  of  the  visible  creation  of  God.  So  lias  a  third 
science  delivered  its  testimony.  If  we  rise  another  step, 
and  survey  man  as  he  is  gathered  into  families  and  tribes 
and  nations,  with  an  endless  variety  of  development,  we 
still  behold  the  broad  foundations  of  a  common  nature 
reposing  under  all — the  grand  principles  of  a  common 
being  ruling  in  the  midst  of  all.  So  a  fourth,  and  the 
youngest  of  the  sciences,  ethnology,  brings  her  tribute. 
And  now  from  this  lofty  summit  survey  the  whole  track 
of  at^es.  In  their  leng-th  and  in  their  breadth  scrutinize 
the  recorded  annals  of  mankind.  There  is  not  one  page 
on  which  one  fact  is  written  which  favors  the  historical 
idea  of  a  diversity  of  nature  or  origin,  while  the  whole 
scope  of  human  story  involves,  assumes,  and  proclaims, 
as  the  first  and  grandest  historic  truth,  the  absolute 
imity  of  the  race."  (''Unity  of  Mankind,"  pp.  285, 
286.)     See  also  §  13. 

3.  The  hodies  of  man  and  woman ^  though  made  alike 
out  of  previously  existhig  material,  are  made — that  of 
nnan  out  of  "  the  dust  of  the  gi'ound  f^  that  of  woman 
out  of  a  Tib  taken  from  the  hody  of  man.  And  this 
for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  a  most  solemn  sanction  to 
the  m^arriage  relation,  and  so  in  the  human  race  to 
establish  the  family.  On  the  Mosaic  record  of  the  crea- 
tion of  woman  Bishop  Patrick  remarks  :  ''  God  did  not 
form  Eve  out  of  the  ground,  as  He  had  done  Adam,  but 
out  of  his  side,  that  He  might  breed  tlie  greater  love 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGOiq"Y.  121 

between  him  and  lier,  as  parts  of  tlie  same  whole. 
Whereby  He  also  effectually  recommended  marriage  to 
all  mankind,  as  founded  in  nature."  And  on  Moses' 
words,  ''  And  brought  her  unto  the  man,' '  he  adds  ;  "  Kot 
merely  by  conducting  her  to  the  place  where  Adam  was  ; 
but  the  Divine  Majesty,  which  now  appeared  to  Eve, 
presented  and  gave  her  to  him  to  be  his  wife.  God  Him- 
self made  the  espousals — if  I  may  so  speak — between 
them,  and  joined  them  together  in  marriage.  .  .  . 
And  by  creating  and  joining  together  but  one  man  and 
one  woman  in  the  beginning,  intended  that  mankind 
should  be  so  propagated,  and  not  by  polygamy." 
(Patrick's  Commentary.) 

The  sacredness  of  the  marriage  relation,  and  so  of  the 
family,  all  history  declares  to  be  fundamental  to  progress 
in  civilization  ;  and  with  equal  distinctness  declares  polyg- 
amy to  be  fatal  to  national  prosperity.  The  marriage 
relation,  such  as  Moses  describes  as  instituted  of  God,  is 
a  thing  utterly  unknown  among  savages.  It  is  a  marked 
characteristic  of  the  savage  to  des^^ise  and  degrade  the 
female  sex.  The  condition  of  woman  among  them,  with 
rare  exceptions,  is  no  better  than  that  of  a  slave  or  beast 
of  burden.  Indeed,  so  intolerable  is  it,  that  it  is  not  an 
uncommon  occurrence  for  female  infants  to  be  put  to 
death  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  and  that  by  the  hands 
of  their  own  mothers.  It  is  only  among  the  most  highly 
civihzed  nations,  and  as  a  result  of  that  civilization,  that 
woman  has  recovered  the  rank  and  station  which,  accord- 
ing to  this  account  of  Moses,  God  gave  her  in  the  begin- 
ning. These  facts  furnish  a  good  and  sufficient  reason  for 
God's  departure  from  the  common  order  of  creation  in 
His  making  of  woman.  Certainly,  the  story  must  be 
regarded  as  a  very  strange  invention — if  it  was  an  inven- 
tion— on  the  part  of  a    '*  semi-barbarous  Hebrew,"  as 


122  NATURE    AND    EEYELATION. 

Professor  Huxley  would  have  us  believe  that  Moses  was. 
In  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  ^^  the  invention  is  more 
incredible  than  the  fact." 

4.  31a7i  loas  inade  in  ''  tlie  image  of  Gocl^''  that  he 
might  have  dominion  over  the  loorh  of  God^s  hands. 
A\^ithout  attempting  a  full  and  particular  exposition  of 
the  phrase,  ''  In  our  image,  after  our  likeness,"  1  remark 
this  much,  at  the  least,  is  implied  therein,  that  man 
was  intended  and  fitted  to  occupy  the  position  of  "  the 
lord  of  creation  ;"  and  to  this  end  he  was  endowed 
with  j)owers  and  faculties  very  different  from  and  greatly 
superior  to  those  of  other  creatures. 

On  this  point  Professor  Huxley  writes  :  ''  There  is 
no  one  who  estimates  more  highly  than  I  do  the  dignity 
of  human  nature  and  the  width  of  the  gulf  in  intellect- 
ual and  moral  matters  which  lies  between  man  and  the 
whole  of  the  lower  creation."  ("  Origin  of  Species," 
Lecture  IT.) 

Max  Miiller  writes  :  ^^  However  much  the  frontiers 
of  the  animal  kingdom  have  been  pushed  forward,  so 
that  the  line  of  demarcation  between  man  and  the  lower 
animals  seemed  at  one  time  to  depend  on  a  mere  fold  in 
the  brain,  there  is  one  barner  which  no  one  has  yet 
ventured  to  touch — the  barrier  of  language.  We  cannot 
tell  as  yet  what  language  is.  It  may  be  a  production  of 
nature,  a  work  of  human  art,  or  a  Divine  gift.  But  to 
whatever  sphere  it  belongs,  it  would  seem  to  stand 
unsurpassed —nay,  unequalled  in  it  by  anything  else.  If 
it  be  a  production  of  Nature,  it  is  her  last  and  crowning 
production,  which  she  reserved  for  man  alone.  If  it  be 
a  work  of  human  art,  it  would  seem  to  lift  the  human 
artist  almost  to  the  level  of  a  Divine  Creator.  If  it  be 
the  gift  of  God,  it  is  God's  greatest  gift  ;  for  throusrh  it 
God  speaks  to  man,  and  man  speaks  to  God  in  worship, 


THE    MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  123 

prayer,  and    meditation."     (Max   Miiller,  as   quoted   in 
Jamieson's  Commentary.) 

Professor  Dana  writes  :  ^^  In  the  appearance  of  man 
tlie  systejn  of  life,  in  progress  through  the  ages,  reached 
its  completion,  and  the  animal  structure  its  highest  per- 
fection. Another  higher  is  not  within  the  range  of  our 
conception.  For  the  vertebrate  type,  which  began  dur- 
ing the  paleozoic,  in  the  j^rone  or  horizontal  fish, 
becomes  erect  in  man,  and  thus  completes,  as  Agassiz 
has  observed,  the  jDOSsible  changes  in  the  series  to  its 
last  term.  An  erect  body  and  an  erect  forehead  admit  of 
no  step  beyond.  But  besides  this,  man's  whole  structure 
declares  his  intellectual  and  spiritual  nature.  His  fore- 
limbs  are  not  organs  of  locomotion,  as  they  are  in  all 
other  mammalians  ;  they  have  passed  from  the  locomo- 
tive to  the  cejyhalic  series,  being  made  to  subserve  the 
purposes  of  the  head  ;  and  this  transfer  is  in  accordance 
with  a  grand  law  in  nature,  which  is  at  the  basis  of  grade 
and  development.  The  cephalization  of  the  animal  has 
been  the  goal  in  all  progress  ;  and  in  man  Vv^e  mark  its 
highest  possible  triumj)h.  Man  was  the  first  being  that 
was  not  finished  on  reaching  adult  growth,  but  was  pro- 
vided with  powers  for  indefinite  expansion,  a  will  for  a 
life  work,  and  boundless  aspirations  to  lead  to  an  end- 
less improvement.  He  was  the  first  being  capable  of  an 
intelligent  survey  of  Nature,  and  comprehension  of  her 
laws  ;  the  first  capable  of  augmenting  his  strength  by 
bending  nature  to  his  service,  rendering  thereby  a  weak 
body  stronger  than  all  animal  force  ;  the  first  capable  of 
deriving  happiness  from  truth  and  goodness  ;  of  appre- 
hending eternal  right  ;  of  reaching  toward  a  knowledge 
of  self  and  of  God  ;  the  first,  therefore,  capable  of  con- 
scious obedience  or  disobedience  of  moral  law,  and  the 
first  subject  to  debasement  through    his  appetites  and 


124  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

moral  nature.  There  is,  lience,  in  man  a  spiritual 
element  in  whicli  tlie  brute  has  no  share.  His  power  of 
indefinite  progress,  his  thoughts  and  desires,  that  look 
onward  even  beyond  time,  his  recognition  of  spiritual 
existence  and  of  a  divinity  above — all  evince  a  nattire 
that  partakes  of  the  infinite  and  divine.  Man  is  linked 
to  the  jpast  through  the  system  of  life^  of  which  he  is  the 
last,  the  completing  creation.  But,  unlike  other  species 
of  that  closing  system  of  the  fast  (significantly  the  2010 
era  of  geological  history),  he,  through  his  spiritual 
nature,  is  far  more  intimately  connected  w^ith  the  open- 
ing future.^''     (Dana's  '^  Geology,"  pp.  578,  579.) 

§  47.   The  Age  of  the  'World. 

When  geologists  first  claimed  for  our  earth  a  far 
greater  age  than  the  six  or  seven  thousand  years  which 
had  long  been  believed  to  measure  the  interval  between 
its  creation  and  the  present  day,  the  claim  was  generally 
disallowed,  on  the  ground  of  the  uncertain,  often  vision- 
ary, character  of  the  speculations  in  which  they  habitually 
indulged.  But  the  geology  of  to-day  is  very  different 
from  the  geology  of  a  century  ago.  As  now  pursued  it 
is  as  thoroughly  Baconian  in  its  methods,  and  its  con- 
clusions are  as  worthy  of  credit,  as  those  of  any  other  of 
the  sciences.  Starting  with  the  unquestionable  truth  that 
our  earth  is  all  the  time  undergoing  change  in  some  part 
or  other  through  the  operation  of  such  agencies  as  river- 
currents  and  floods,  volcanoes  and  earthquakes,  the  opera- 
tion of  coral  polyps  in  building  up  reefs,  and  of  stone- 
boring  mollusks  and  waves  in  tearing  them  to  pieces 
again,  and  postulating  the  operation  of  these  agencies  in 
the  past  substantially  as  in  the  present,  the  geologist  seeks 
to  construct  a  physical  history  of  the  earth,  to  answer  the 
question,  Ilow  has  the  earth  come  to  have  its  present 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  125 

form  and  structure  ?  The  legitimacy  of  sucli  a  method 
as  this  no  thoughtful  person  can  question.  And  among 
the  most  certain  conclusions  to  which  this  method  leads 
us  is  the  one  that  the  age  of  our  world  is  vastly  greater 
than  six  or  seven  thousand  years. 

This  conclusion  is  Ijased  npon  such  well-ascertained 
facts  as  these — viz. :  (1)  Continents  and  sea-bottoms  have 
changed  places  more  tlian  once  in  ages  past,  as  is  proved 
])y  the  occurrence  of  fossil  corals  and  mollusks  far  up  on 
the  mountain -sides  and  on  the  high -lands  of  the  earth  ; 
and  this  must  have  occurred  before  man  began  his  life 
here,  as  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  that  life  to 
have  continued  through  such  convulsions.  (2)  Several 
different  systems  of  organic  life  have,  in  succession, 
existed  upon  the  earth,  and  passed  away  before  man  was 
brought  into  being.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  these 
several  systems  have  left  their  fossil  remains  entombed  in 
the  rock-strata,  with  no  human  remains  among  them. 
(3)  The  great  thickness  of  the  fossil  if  erous  rock-strata 
in  which  no  human  remains  occur — in  Pennsylvania  forty 
thousand  feet  (Dana's  "  Geology,"  p.  145) — plainly 
demands  a  long  period  for  their  deposition  and  their 
subsequent  subjection  to  all  the  changes  which  they  have 
evidently  undergone. 

It  is  true,  as  the  Duke  of  Argyll  remarks,  that 
*'  chronology  is  of  two  kinds  :  first,  time  measured  by 
years,  and,  secondly,  time  measured  only  by  an  ascertained 
order  or  succession  of  events.  The  one  may  be  called 
time-absolute,  the  other  time-relative.  Now,  among  all 
the  sciences  wdiich  afford  us  evidence  on  the  antiquity  of 
man  one,  and  one  only,  gives  us  any  knowledge  of  time- 
absolute,  and  that  is  history.  From  all  the  others  we 
can  gather  only  the  less  definite  information  of  time-rela- 
tive.    They  can  tell  us  of  nothing  more  than  of  the  order 


12G  XATURE    AXD    REVELATION". 

in  which  certain  events  took  place.  But  of  the  length 
of  interval  between  those  events  neither  archaeology  nor 
geology  nor  ethnology  can  tell  ns  anything."  (''Pri- 
meval Man,"  pp.  Y8,  79.) 

It  is  true  also  that  geologists  of  high  standing  in  their 
profession  have  blundered  egregiously  when  they  have 
attempted  to  state  geological  time  in  years — <?.^.,  Sir 
Charles  Lyell,  when  he  fixed  the  age  of  the  Mississippi 
Delta  at  one  hundred  thousand  years.  In  doing  tliis 
he  assumed  that  the  rate  of  formation  of  the  delta  had 
been  uniform  for  all  time,  while  the  very  nature  of  the 
agency — that  of  the  river  current  and  floods — by  which 
it  must  have  been  formed,  taken  in  connection  with 
what  geology  teaches  respecting  the  formation  of  the 
Mississippi  Yalley  itself,  ought  to  have  satisfied  him  that 
such  could  not  possibly  have  been  the  case.  The  Missis- 
sippi Valley  was  formed  originally  by  the  upheaval  of  the 
two  great  mountain  ranges  which  bound  it  on  the  east 
and  west.  As  these  mountain  ranges,  whether  upheai^ed 
rapidly  or  slowly,  must  have  emerged  covered  with  a 
great  thickness  of  silt  and  mud  from  the  sea- bottom,  the 
amount  of  delta  material  washed  away  by  rain  and  flood, 
and  carried  down  by  the  river  current,  in  a  given  time, 
must  have  ])een  far  greater  when  the  valley  was  first 
formed  than  it  is  now.  It  should  not  surprise  us,  then, 
that  Lyell's  one  hundred  thousand  years  have,  in  the 
hands  of  later  and  more  cautious  reasoners,  dwindled  to 
four  thousand  four  hundred. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  general  conclusion  remains 
unquestionable,  that  our  world  was  in  being  long  be- 
fore man  was  created  ;  and  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
its  age  must  be  vastly  greater  than  the  six  or  seven 
thousand  years  once  allowed.  In  view  of  this  fact,  the 
question  at  once  presents  itself,  How  is  this  great  age  to 


THE    MOSAIC    COSMOGOXY.  127 

be  harmonized  with  the    record  contained    in  tlie   first 
chapters  of  Genesis  ? 

§  48.    The  Popular  Method  of  Reconciliation, 

The  method  of  reconciling  the  conchisions  of  geology, 
especially  its  conclusion  respecting  the  great  age  of  the 
world,  vrith  the  statements  of  the  first  chapters  of 
Genesis  most  popular  with  Christian  scientists  in  our 
day,  is  one  which  assumes  that  the  word  day  in  these 
chapters  is  to  be  understood  not  in  the  sense  of  a  period 
of  twenty-four  hours,  but  in  the  sense  of  an  age,  or  long 
period  of  time,  characterized  by  something  peculiar  to  it. 

That  the  Hebrew  word  yom,  here  translated  day,  is 
often  used  in  this  wider  sense  in  the  Scriptures  is  unques- 
tionable. "  As  in  the  day  of  temptation  in  the  wilder- 
ness" (Psalm  95  :  8),  w^here  the  day  was  one  of  forty 
years.  "  In  that  day  there  shall  be  a  fountain  opened  to 
the  house  of  David,  and  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem 
for  sin  and  for  uncleanness,"  where  the  day  covers  the 
whole  Christian  dispensation.  And  in  this  very  cos- 
mogony of  Moses  (Gen.  2:4):  ^'  In  the  day  that  the 
Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens,"  it  evi- 
dently covers  the  whole  period  of  the  cosmogony.  Un- 
derstood in  this  sense,  Moses'  days  of  creation  correspond 
to  the  eras  of  geology  ;  and  the  ''  morning  and  evening" 
are  but  the  opening  and  closing  portions  of  those  eras. 

Adopting  this  interpretation  of  the  word  day.  Professor 
Dana  writes:  "The  account" — ^.^.,  Moses' account — 
"recognizes  in  creation  two  great  eras,  each  of  three 
days— an  inorganic  and  an  organic. 

"Each  of  these  eras  opens  with  the  appearance  of 
light  ;  the  first,  light  cosmical  ;  the  second,  light  from 
the  sun,  for  the  special  use  of  the  earth. 

"  Each  era  ends  in  a  day  of  two  great  works,  the  two 


128  NATURE   AKD    REYELATIOX. 

sliown  to  be  distinct  by  being  severally  pronounced  good. 
On  the  third  day — that  closing  the  inorganic  era — there 
was,  first,  the  dividing  of  the  land  from  the  waters^  and 
afterward  the  creation  of  vegetation^  or  the  institntion  of 
a  kingdom  of  life,  a  work  widely  diverse  from  all  preced- 
ing it  in  the  era.  So  on  the  sixth  day,  terminating  the 
organic  era,  there  was,  first,  the  creation  of  mammals^ 
and  then  a  second  far  greater  work,  totally  new  in  its 
grandest  elements — the  creation  of  man. 
''  The  arrangement  is,  then,  as  follows  : 

' '  I.   The  Inorganic  Eraj. 

*^  1st  Day. — Light  cosmical. 

''  2d  Day.  — The  earth  divided  from  the  fluid  around 

it,  or  individualized. 

,  ^  (1.   Outlinins:  of  the  land  and  water, 

<c  3d  Dav     \  . 

•^*    I  2.   Creation  of  vegetation. 

''  II.   The  Organic  Era. 

*'  4th  Day.— Light  from  the  snn. 

*'  5th  Day. — Creation  of  the  lower  orders  of  animals. 

,,  ^  ,    ^        (1.   Creation  of  mammals. 
''  6th  Day.  ^  ,,    ^^      ..    *     . 

•^     (2.  Creation  oi  man. 

''  In  addition,  the  last  day  of  each  era  includes  one 
work  typical  of  the  era,  and  another  related  to  it  in 
essential  points,  but  also  prophetic  of  the  future. 
Vegetation,  while,  for  physical  reasons,  a  part  of  the 
creation  of  the  third  day,  was  also  prophetic  of  the  future 
organic  era,  in  which  the  progress  of  Hfe  was  the  grand 
characteristic.  The  record  thus  accords  with  the  funda- 
mental principle  in  history,  that  the  characteristic  of  an 
age  has  its  beginnings  with  the  age  preceding.  So,  again, 
man,  while  like  other  mammals  in  structure,  even  to  the 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGONY.  129 

homologies  of  every  bone  and  muscle,  was  endowed  with 
a  spiritual  nature,  which  looks  forward  to  another  era, 
that  of  s]3iritual  existence.  The  seventh  day — the  day  of 
rest  from  the  work  of  creation — is  man's  period  of  prep- 
aration for  tlie  new  existence  ;  and  it  is  to  promote  this 
special  end  that,  in  strict  parallelism,  the  Sabbath  follows 
man's  six  days  of  work. "  (Dana's  "  Geology,"  pp.  769, 
T70.) 

A  harmony  of  genesis  and  geology,  substantially  the 
same  with  that  given  above,  is  adopted  by  the  late 
Professor  A.  Guyot,  in  his  recently  published  ^'  Crea- 
tion," to  which  1  would  refer  the  reader  who  may  wish 
for  further  details. 

§  49.  ^  Second  MeiJwd  of  Reconciliatiori. 

A  second  method  of  reconciling  the  conclusions  of 
geology,  especially  its  conclusion  respecting  the  great  age 
of  the  world,  with  the  statements  of  the  first  chapters  of 
Genesis,  is,  to  understand  Gen.  1  :  1 — ''  In  the  begin- 
ning God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth" — to  refer  to 
a  period  long  anterior  to  that  of  the  events  recorded  in 
the  subsequent  portions  of  the  chapters  ;  that  Moses 
makes  this  statement  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  us  who 
was  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  who,  therefore,  was  the 
proper  object  of  man's  adoration  and  worship  ;  that 
then  the  long  ages  demanded  by  geology  followed 
ages  in  which  the  rock-strata,  with  all  their  fossils,  were 
deposited,  with  the  exception  of  those  in  which  human 
remains  occur  ;  and  of  these  Moses  says  nothing,  for 
the  sufficient  reason  that  their  history  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  religious  history  of  man  ;  that  when  God  begins 
the  subsequent  setting  in  order  of  the  earth  which  is  to 
fit  it  for  the  inhabitation  of  man,  Moses  resumes  the  nar- 
rative in  the  words,  "  And  the  earth  was  without  form 


130  NATURE   AND    REVELATION". 

and  void  "  {loaste  and  void,  Kew  Yersion),  '^  and  darkness 
was  npon  tlie  face  of  the  deep" — thus  describing  tlie 
chaotic  condition  to  which  the  earth  was  reduced  at  the 
time — "  and  the  spirit  of  God  moved  upon"  {was  hrood- 
ing  upon,  margin)  ^'  the  face  of  the  waters."  Then  fol- 
lows an  account  of  God's  preparation  of  the  earth  as  a 
dwelling-place  for  man,  and  the  re-stocking  it  with  plants 
and  animals  adapted  to  its  improved  condition  ;  many  of 
these  plants  and  animals  being  the  same  in  kind  with 
those  existing  in  preceding  ages,  otliers  entirely  new  ; 
and  then  the  story  of  man's  creation  is  given  us,  with 
which  the  cosmogony  properly  closes. 

The  idea  that  Gen.  1  :  1—''  In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  lieaven  and  the  earth" — refers  to  a  period 
long  anterior  to  that  of  the  events  recorded  in  the  sub- 
sequent portions  of  the  chapter  is  not  a  new  idea,  first 
suggested  by  the  wish  to  make  the  narrative  of  Moses 
conform  to  the  demands  of  geology.  It  was  advocated 
by  Augustine  and  Theodoret  among  the  early  Christian 
Fathers,  and  among  modern  commentators  by  Bishop 
Patrick,  v/ho  died  in  1707.  He  writes  :  ''  How  long  all 
thino-s  continued  in  mere  confusion,  after  the  chaos  was 
created,  before  light  was  extracted  out  of  it,  we  are  not 
told.  It  might  be  (for  anything  here  revealed)  a  great 
while  ;  and  all  that  time  the  mighty  spirit  was  making 
Buch  motions  in  it  as  prepared,  disposed,  and  ripened 
every  part  of  it,  for  such  productions  as  w.ere  to  appear 
successively  in  such  spaces  of  time  as  are  here  and  after- 
ward mentioned  by  Moses,  who  informs  us,  that  after 
things  were  so  digested  and  made  ready  (by  long  fer- 
mentation, perhaps)  to  be  wrought  into  form,  God  pro- 
duced every  day,  for  six  days  together,  some  creature  or 
other,  till  all  was  finished,  of  which  liglit  was  the  very 
first."     (Patrick's  Commentary  on  Gen.  1  :  5.) 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGONY.  131 

1.  One  objection  to  this  explanation  of  the  Mosaic 
record  is,  it  requires  ns  to  believe  in  the  immediate 
exercise  of  creative  power,  accomplishing  in  a  brief  space 
what  in  ordinary  circumstances  would  require  a  long 
time — 'the  re-stocking  of  the  earth  with  all  the  vast  variety 
of  animals  in  the  sj^ace  of  two  days — a  work  which  had 
previously  occupied  ages  in  perfecting.  In  answer  to 
this  we  say  :  In  creation  there  is  implied  a  direct  inter- 
vention of  Divine  power  in  the  affairs  of  the  world  ;  and 
in  other  instances  where  such  intervention  has  occurred 
this  same  peculiarity  often  appears.  In  our  Lord's  mir- 
acle of  stilling  the  tempest,  the  record  is  :  ""  There  arose 
a  great  tempest  in  the  sea,  insomuch  that  the  ship  was 
covered  w^itli  the  waves.  .  .  .  Then  He  arose  and 
rebuked  the  w^inds  and  the  sea  ;  and  there  was  a  great 
calm."  (Matt.  8  :  24-26.)  Here  the  Divine  word  of 
power  accomplished  in  a  moment  wdiat  in  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances it  would  have  required  hours  to  effect.  In 
his  miracle  of  turning  water  into  w4ne  at  Cana  we  have 
an  illustration  of  the  same  truth  in  closer  analogy  with 
the  case  under  consideration.  "  He  who  does  every  year 
prepare  the  wine  in  the  grape,"  writes  Trench,  "  caus- 
ing it  to  drink  up  and  expand  with  the  moisture  of  earth 
and  heaven,  to  take  this  up  into  itself,  and  transmute  it 
into  its  own  nobler  juices,  did  now  gather  together  all 
this  slow  process  into  the  act  of  a  single  moment,  and 
accomplish  in  an  instant  what  ordinarily  He  does  not  ac- 
complish but  in  many  months."  ("Notes  on  the 
Miracles,"  p.  91.) 

2.  A  second  objection  to  this  explanation  is,  that  it 
requires  us  to  accept  as  true  the  destruction  of  all  the 
plants  and  animals — certainly  of  all  that  could  not  sur- 
vive in  the  midst  of  the  chaos  described  in  verse  2 — • 
existing  upon  the  earth  at  the  close  of  the  geological  era 


132  XATURE   AND    REVELATIOi^. 

immediately  preceding  that  of  man,  and  a  re-stocking  of 
the  earth  in  connection  with  man's  creation  ;  a  supposi- 
tion which,  it  is  said,  involves  an  extravagant  expendi- 
ture of  power  on  the  part  of  God  irreconcilable  with  our 
ideas  of  His  perfect  skill  and  wisdom.  To  this  it  may  be 
answered  : 

(1)  We  know  far  too  little  of  the  elements  of  the  prob- 
lem under  examination  to  pronounce  a  confident  judg- 
ment upon  it.  In  the  case  of  a  tree,  the  leaves  are  the 
active  living  portions  of  the  organism  ;  the  trunk  and 
branches  are  comparatively  inert  ;  and  this  to  such  an 
extent  that  some  eminent  botanists  have  been  almost 
ready  to  treat  the  leaf  as  the  individual  plant,  and  the 
tree  when  in  full  leaf  as  a  colony  or  nation  of  plants. 
N'ow,  every  year,  the  myriads  of  leaves  on  a  tree  die,  and 
are  cast  aside,  to  be  replaced  by  new  leaves  the  succeed - 
inir  season.  At  first  sis^ht  there  seems  to  be  here  as  ex- 
travagant  an  expenditure  of  power  as  in  the  case  we  are 
considering.  Why  not  suffer  the  old  leaves  to  remain, 
and  retaining  their  vitality,  do  the  life-work  of  the  tree 
year  after  year  ?  To  this  question  the  botanist  answers  : 
The  organism  of  the  leaf,  which  in  the  spring  is  full  of 
vigor  and  in  perfect  working  order,  in  doing  the  work 
of  a  single  summer  becomes  clogged  and  worn  out,  and 
thus  unfitted  to  continue  the  work  for  a  longer  time  ; 
and  for  this  reason,  in  the  wise  economy  of  nature,  it  is 
thrown  aside,  and  a  new  leaf  takes  its  place.  Something 
like  this  same  law  would  seem  to  obtain  in  organic  nature 
at  large.  ''  There  are  certain  conceptions,"  writes  the 
Duke  of  Argyll,  ^'  which  seem  to  rise  unbidden  in  the 
mind  from  the  facts  which  geology  has  rev^caled  touching 
the  history  of  creation.  One  of  these  is  that  each  new 
organic  form,  or  each  new  variety  of  birth,  seems  always 
to  have  been  introduced  with  a  wonderful  energy  of  life. 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGON^Y.  133 

.  .  The  vigor  which  prevails  in  the  youth  of  an 
individual  is  but  the  type  of  the  vigor  which  has  always 
prevailed  in  new  and  rising  species.  All  the  complex 
influences  which  led  to  their  being  born  led  also  to  their 
being  fat  and  fl.ourishing.  That  which  caused  them  to 
arise  at  all  must  have  had  the  effect  of  causing  them  to 
arise  in  strength.  The  condition  of  all  the  lower  races 
of  men  is  in  absolute  contrast  with  everything  which  this 
law  demands.  Everywhere  and  in  everything  they 
exhibit  all  the  characteristics  of  an  energy  which  is  spent, 
of  a  force  which  has  declined,  of  a  vitality  which  has 
been  arrested."  ("The  Unity  of  Nature,"  pp.  428, 
429.)  If  this  be  true,  that  organic  forms  and  species  of 
plants  and  animals,  like  the  individuals  of  which  they 
are  made  up,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  grow  old 
and  unfitted  for  their  work,  and  need  to  be  replaced  by 
new  creations,  may  not  the  close  of  the  era  immediately 
preceding  the  creation  of  man  have  been  one  of  these 
periods  of  necessary  change  when  that  which  had  become 
old  needed  to  be  replaced  by  the  new  ? 

(2)  The  destruction  of  the  then  existing  plants  and 
animals  would  seem  to  be  necessarily  involved  in  the 
breaking  up  of  the  surface  strata  of  the  earth,  and  so 
the  necessity  of  a  new  creation  when  order  is  restored. 
This  breaking  up  of  the  earth's  surface,  and  a  breaking 
up  immediately  preceding  the  creation  of  man,  is  a  mat- 
ter of  supreme  importance  to  man,  if  he  is  to  lead  the 
life  of  a  civilized  being  upon  the  earth.  But  for  this 
the  riches  of  the  earth — the  vast  coal  fields  of  the  carbon- 
iferous age,  the  granites,  the  sandstones,  and  other  valu- 
able building  materials,  and  most  of  the  metallic  ores, 
would  have  lain  forever  beyond  his  reach.  In  attempt- 
ing to  reconcile  the  destruction  of  plants  and  animals 
and  the  new  creation  supposed  with  the  wisdom  of  God, 


134  N"ATURE   AND    REVELATIOlSr. 

we  have  then,  in  tlie  facts  jnst  stated,  a  second  ground 
on  which  we  may  rest — the  ground  that  "  the  end  justi- 
lies  the  means. " 

3.  To  this  explanation  it  may  be  objected  that  the 
order  of  creation  as  given  in  the  iirst  chapter  of  Genesis 
— viz. :  first,  plants,  then  fish  and  flying  creatures,  and, 
lastly,  land  animals — is  that  which  the  records  of  the  fos- 
siliferous  rocks  declares  to  have  been  the  order  observed 
when  those  rocks  were  deposited,  and  so  of  the  long  ages 
of  which  this  explanation  supposes  Moses  to  say  nothing. 
This  is  true,  in  general,  though  in  the  present  state  of 
geological  science  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  established  in 
all  the  particulars  that  Professor  Guyot  in  his  ^'  Crea- 
tion "  would  seem  to  imply.  This  order,  in  general, 
was  rendered  necessary  by  the  way  in  which  the  original 
chaos  was  developed  into  the  cosmos  of  the  period.  If 
our  earth  was  a  second  time  reduced  to  a  condition  of 
chaos,  and  then,  developing  under  the  operation  of  crea- 
tive power  in  the  space  of  six  natural  days  into  our  pres- 
ent cosmos,  is  to  be  restocked,  the  same  reasons  which 
required  a  certain  order  in  the  first  creation  will,  of 
necessity,  require  the  same  order  to  be  observed  in  the 
new  creation. 

4.  That  the  earth  has  been  subject  to  great  convul- 
Bions  at  various  points  in  its  history  is  beyond  all  reason- 
able question.  ''  It  is  perfectly  certain,"  writes  Professor 
Ilnxley,  "  that  at  a  comparatively  recent  period  of  the 
world's  history — the  cretaceous  epoch — none  of  the  great 
physical  features  which  at  present  mark  the  surface  of 
the  globe  existed.  It  is  certain  that  the  Rocky  Mountains 
were  not.  It  is  certain  that  the  Himalaya  Mountains  were 
not.  It  is  certain  that  the  Alps  and  Pyrenees  had  no 
existence.  The  evidence  is  of  the  plainest  possible  char- 
acter ;  and  it  is  simply  this  :  we  find  raised  up  on  the 


THE    MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  135 

flanks  of  tliese  monntains,  'elevated  by  the  forces  of  up- 
heaval which  have  given  rise  to  them,  masses  of  cretace- 
ous rocks,  which  formed  the  bottom  of  the  sea  before 
those  mountains  existed.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the 
elevatory  forces  which  gave  rise  to  the  mountains  operated 
subsequently  to  the  cretaceons  epoch,  and  that  the 
mountains  themselves  are  largely  made  up  of  the  materials 
deposited  in  the  sea  which  once  occupied  their  place. 
As  we  go  back  in  time,  we  meet  with  constant  alternations 
of  sea  and  land,  of  estuary  and  open  ocean."  ("  Kew 
York  Lectm-es  on  Evolution,"  Lecture  I.)  At  how 
recent  a  period  great  changes  in  the  surface  of  the  earth 
have  occurred  we  cannot  say  with  certainty  ;  but  this  I 
know  from  my  owu  personal  observations,  that  on  the 
western  flank  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains  in  Virginia  the 
fossil  corals  and  gorgonias  and  sponges  are  of  species 
now  living  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  This  explanation, 
then,  does  not  involve  anything  in  the  present  condition 
of  the  earth's  surface  at  variance  with  ascertained  facts. 

To  those  who  adopt  it,  one  great  recommendation  of 
the  explanation  we  have  been  considering  is,  that  it  har- 
monizes all  that  geology  demands  respecting  the  age  of 
the  world  with  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  as  eff^ected 
in  six  days,  understanding  those  days  to  have  been  nat- 
ural days  of  twenty-four  hours  each.  This  interpretation 
of  the  term  day,  it  is  said,  is  a  more  natural  one  than 
that  vrhich  understands  it  to  mean  an  indefinite  period, 
an  era,  and  better  agrees  with  the  terms  in  which  Moses 
records  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  :  "  And  God  blessed 
the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it  ;  because  that  in  it  He 
rested  from  all  His  works  which  God  created  and  made" 
(Gen.  2:3);  and  more  especially  with  the  language  of  the 
Fourth  Commandment — ''Remember  the  Sabbath  day 
to  keep  it  holy,     .     .     .  for  in  six  days  the  Lord  made 


136  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  a-nd  all  that  in  them  is,  and 
rested  the  seventh  day  ;  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the 
Sabbath  day,  and  hallowed  it."    (Ex.  20  :  8,  11.) 

§  50.  The  Proper  Position  for  the  Christian  Apologist, 

Does  the  reader  ask,  Which  of  these  methods  of  recon- 
ciling the  cosmogony  of  Moses  with  the  demands  of 
geology  as  to  the  great  age  of  the  earth  shall  I  adopt  ?  I 
answer,  Neither  of  them  as  a  finality.  Either  of  them 
will  fully  answer  the  purposes  of  Cliristian  apology,  will 
suffice  to  show  that  there  is  no  real  conflict  on  this  point 
between  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  and  tlie  fairly  established 
conclusions  of  the  geologist.  The  time  for  making  out 
a  complete  ^'harmony"  of  the  two  has  not  yet  come. 
That  the  reader  may  see  more  distinctly  the  exact  nature 
of  the  difficulty  in  making  out  a  harmony,  I  would  ask 
him  to  remember  that  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  is  given  us 
in  the  language  of  common  life — a  language  in  which 
things  are  described  as  they  appear  (§  4),  while  the  geo- 
logical record  is  in  the  language  of  science  ;  and  a  har- 
mony of  the  two  involves  the  correct  translation  of  the 
one  into  the  language  of  the  other. 

The  nature  of  the  work  to  l)e  done  will  be  best  appre- 
hended by  the  examination  of  a  particular  instance  in 
which  a  probable  harmony  has  been  established.  In 
Joshua  10  :  13,  14  we  read  :  ''So  the  sun  stood  still  in 
the  midst  of  the  heaven"  ("  in  the  division  of  the  heavens 
above  the  horizon"  {Bush),  and  so,  apparently,  "  upon 
Gibeon"),  "and  hasted  not  to  go  down  about  a  whole 
day.  And  there  was  no  day  like  that  before  it  or  after 
it,  that  the  Lord  hearkened  unto  the  voice  of  a  man  : 
for  the  Lord  fought  for  Israel." 

On  the  expression  in  our  English  Bible,  "  And  hasted 
not  to  go  down  about  a  whole  day,"  Professor  Bush,  who 


THE    MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  137 

forty  years  ago  was  considered  the  finest  Hebrew  scholar 
in  America,  writes  :  ''  This  should  be  '  hasted  not  to  go 
down  as  at  the  perfect  day ' — i.e. ,  as  it  naturally  does  when 
the  day  is  finished,  when  the  ordinary  space  of  a  day  has 
elapsed.  This  we  conceive  to  be  the  true  force  of  the 
original,  though  aware  that  it  requires  one  to  be  ac- 
quainted with  the  Hebrew  in  order  to  feel  the  force  of 
the  evidence  in  favor  of  such  a  rendering.  Such  an  one, 
however,  upon  turning  to  the  original  of  Ex.  31  :  18  ; 
Dent.  16  :  6  ;  2-1  :  13  ;  Ps.  73  :  19,  will  find,  if  we  mistake 
not,  ample  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation. 
The  meaning,  as  we  understand  it,  is  not  that  the  day 
was  miraculously  lengthened  out  to  the  extent  of  twelve 
hours,  or  another  whole  day,  but  simply  that  when  the 
ordinary  duration  of  a  day  was  completed,  the  sun  still 
delayed  his  setting,  but  for  how  long  a  time  we  are  not 
informed  ;  long  enough,  however,  we  may  presume,  for 
fully  accomplishing  the  object  for  which  the  miracle  was 
granted."  (Bush  on  Joshua,  in  loo.)  And  Dr.  A. 
Clarke  writes  :  '^  And  the  sun  stood  still  in  the  (upper) 
hemisphere  of  the  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down, 
when  the  day  was  complete — that  is,  though  the  day  was 
then  complete,  the  sun  being  in  the  horizon,  the  line 
that  to  the  eye  constituted  the  mid -heaven,  yet  it  hasted 
not  to  go  down,  was  miraculously  sustained  in  its  then 
almost  setting  position  ;  and  this  seems  still  more  evident 
from  the  moon  appearing  at  that  time,  which  it  is  not 
reasonable  to  suppose  could  be  visible  in  the  glare  of  light 
occasioned  by  a  noonday  sun."  (Clarke's  Commen- 
tary, in  loG.)  Thus  much  toward  a  correct  rendering 
of  the  Bible  record. 

Turnino:  now  to  the  translation  of  this  record,  written 
in  the  language  of  common  life,  into  the  language  of 
science.     Inasmuch  as  the  ordinary  way  in  which  the  sun 


138  NATURE    AND    REVELATION-. 

and  moon  are  made  to  rise  and  set  is  by  tlie  revolution 
of  the  earth  upon  its  axis,  and  assuming,  as  our  fathers 
did,  that  this  was  the  only  way,  the  proper  translation 
would  be — so  the  earth  stopped  in  its  revolution  upon  its 
axis  for  several  hours  toward  the  close  of  the  day.  To 
the  credibiHty  of  such  an  event  as  this  infidel  scientists 
have  made  two  objections,  perplexing  to  the  older  com- 
mentators—viz.: (1)  That  had  such  a  day  occurred  it 
must  have  extended  over  half  the  globe,  and  that  the 
half  in  which  all  the  civilized  nations  of  antiquity  were 
embraced  ;  and  so  we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  some 
notice  of  it  would  have  reached  us  from  other  sources, 
especially  as  the  Chaldeans  and  Egyptians  were  noted  for 
their  devotion  to  astronomy  ;  and  (2)  that  when  we  take 
into  account  all  tliat  science  teaches  us  is  necessarily  in- 
volved in  stopping  the  revolution  of  the  earth  upon  its 
axis,  even  for  an  hour,  we  must  regard  this  as  the  most 
stupendous  miracle  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  it 
has  been  intimated  that  had  Joshua  understood  the  true 
nature  of  our  solar  system,  or  had  he  written  under  in- 
spiration of  a  Being  who  did  understand  it,  he  would 
never  have  made  such  a  record  as  this. 

Within  the  present  century  scientists  have  learned 
that  the  revolution  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis  is  not  the 
only  means  by  which  a  body  like  the  sun  may  be,  in  ap- 
pearance, raised  above  the  horizon.  ^Yhat  is  termed 
mirage,  caused  by  the  coming  in  of  a  dense  stratum  of 
air  at  some  distance  above  the  earth's  surface,  will  pro- 
duce this  same  effect.  "  The  particular  form  of  mirage 
known  as  looming  consists  in  an  excessive  apparent 
elevation  of  the  object.  A  most  remarkable  case  of  this 
sort  occurred  on  the  2Gth  of  July,  1798,  at  Hastings. 
From  this  place  the  French  coast  is  fifty  miles  distant  ; 
yet  from  the  seaside  the  whole  coast   of  France  from 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  139 

Calais  to  near  Dieppe  was  distinctly  visible^  and  con- 
tinued so  for  tliree  hours."  (''Chambers's  Encjclo- 
pnedia. ")  In  the  summer  of  1856  the  author  witnessed  a 
mirage  on  Lake  Michigan,  by  which  the  Manitou  Islands, 
some  twenty  miles  distant  from  his  point  of  observation, 
were  raised,  in  appearance,  thirty  degrees,  or  two  hours, 
above  the  horizon. 

Knowing  these  facts,  were  I  to  attempt  to  translate 
the  record  of  Joshua's  miracle  into  the  lanoi-uai^e  of 
science,  I  would  not  write.  So  the  earth  stopped  in  its 
revolution  upon  its  axis,  but  so  the  Lord  caused  a  mirage 
by  which  tlie  sun  and  moon  were  made  to  remain  for  a 
season,  in  appearance,  above  the  horizon ;  and  thus 
lengthened  out  the  day,  for  the  Lord  fought  for  Israel. 
This  interpretation  does  not  in  any  way  atfect  the  truly 
miraculous  character  of  the  event  recorded  ;  but  it  does 
explain  a  particular  recorded,  otherwise  inexplicable — 
viz. :  that  the  moon  as  well  as  the  sun  remained  above  the 
horizon  ;  and  it  etfectually  answers  the  cavils  (1)  that 
this  remarkable  day  is  not  mentioned  by  the  Chaldean 
or  Egyptian  astronomers,  inasmuch  as  a  lengthening  of 
the  day  produced  in  this  way  would  not  extend  many 
miles  from  its  centre  at  Gibeon  ;  and  (2)  the  stupendous 
character  of  the  event  disappears,  and  the  miracle  takes 
its  place  naturally  in  the  class  of  miracles  recorded  in 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

We  have  thus  made  out  a  probable  "harmony" 
between  this  record  of  Joshua  and  the  demands  of 
science,  such  as  was  impossible  a  century  ago.  And 
this  has  been  done  (1)  by  correcting  the  English  ver- 
sion in  the  light  of  a  more  careful  study  of  the  Hebrew 
original  ;  and  (2)  by  science,  in  its  progress,  making 
us  acquainted  with  truth  unknown  to  our  fathers  ;  not 
tliat   our   fathers   never  witnessed   a  mirage,  but   they 


140  NATURE   AXD    REYELATIOX. 

knew  not  how  to  explain  it — could  not  tell  how  it  was 
produced. 

That  the  authorized  English  version  of  Genesis  is  not 
perfect  all  will  admit.  The  new  version,  by  a  very  slight 
change,  the  correctness  of  which  no  one  will  question 
— viz.:  the  substitution  in  ch.  1  :  21  of  "great  sea- 
monsters"  for  "  great  whales" — has  entirely  removed  an 
alleged  discrepancy  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  as  inter- 
preted by  Dana  and  Guyot,  with  the  cosmogony  of 
science.  Xo  longer  ago  than  1876  Professor  Huxley 
wrote  :  "  If  it  be  true  that  all  varieties  of  fishes,  and  the 
great  whales,  and  the  like  made  their  appearance  on  the 
fifth  day,  we  ought  to  fi.nd  the  remains  of  these  animals 
in  the  older  rocks — in  those  which  were  deposited  before 
the  carboniferous  epoch.  Fishes  we  do  find  in  consider- 
able numbers  and  variety  ;  but  the  great  whales  are 
absent. "  ("New  York  Lectures  on  Evol  ution, ' '  Lecture 
I.)  The  whale,  as  we  now  use  the  term,  is  a  warm- 
blooded mammal,  and  its  remains  do  not  occur  in  the 
strata  Professor  Huxley  refers  to  ;  but  tlie  remains  of 
"  great  sea-monsters"  do,  as  every  geologist  knows.  That 
the  cosmogony  of  geology  is  yet  very  incomplete,  and 
very  uncertain,  too,  especially  as  regards  the  element  of 
time^  every  intelligent  geologist  will  admit.  To  be  con- 
vinced of  this,  one  needs  but  to  read  Professor  Huxley's 
address  before  the  British  Geological  Society,  pubhshed 
in  his  volume  of  "  Lay  Sermons,"  more  particularly  the 
part  of  it  concerning  "  geological  cotemporaneity." 

In  such  circumstances  the  construction  of  a  perfect 
"harmony"  of  the  two  records  is  out  of  the  question. 
"What  we  can  do,  and  all  we  can  safely  do  at  present  is, 
to  collate  the  two  from  time  to  time,  carefully  distin- 
guishing between  the  established  truths  of  science  and 
the  unprov^ed  hypotheses  of  enthusiastic  scientists,  noting 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGONY.  141 

tlie  points  in  which  they  agree,  and  quietly  leaving 
seeming  discrepancies  to  be  explained  in  the  future. 
This  is  the  course  which  the  author  has  pursued  for  many 
years  ;  and  in  those  years  he  has  seen  science,  in  more 
instances  than  one,  adopt  the  very  doctrines  of  the 
Mosaic  cosmogony  which  at  one  time  it  denounced — e.().^ 
the  doctrines  of  "  the  unity  of  mankind  "  (§  46)  and  the 
laws  of  "  biogenesis"  and  "  homogenesis."     (§  44.) 

Ceeatio:n  vs.  Evolution. 

The  Mosaic  cosmogony  has  long  been  understood  to 
embody  the  doctrine  of  creation,  as  contradistinguished 
from  that  of  evolution.  As  already  remarked,  ''  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution,  taken  in  its  most  limited  range, 
as  excluding  inorganic  nature  on  the  one  hand,  and  so 
recognizing  the  fact  that  a  great  gulf  separates  between 
the  non-living  and  the  living,  and  excluding  also  man, 
on  the  other  hand,  and  so  recognizing  the  fact  that  an 
impassable  gulf  separates  the  brute  from  immortal  man 
'  made  in  the  image  of  God,'  and  understanding  it  as  sim- 
ply '  a  mode  of  creation,'  ...  is  not  irreconcilable  with 
the  Bible  account  of  the  origin  of  plants  and  animals  " 
(see  §  37) ;  but,  certainlj^,  it  does  not  furnish  as  natural 
an  interpretation  as  the  old  theory  of  creation  does. 
As  evolution  in  this  form  is  persistently  urged  upon  our 
acceptance  by  some  who  firmly  believe  in  the  divine  in- 
spiration of  Genesis,  our  discussion  of  the  Mosaic  cosmog- 
ony would  be  incomplete  without  some  examination  of 
this  claim  ;  and  to  this  we  now  ask  the  reader's  attention. 

§  51.  nuxley'  s  Objection  to  Creation  as  Supernatural. 

"  The  hypotheses  respecting  the  origin  of  species  which 
profess  to  stand  upon  a  scientific  basis,  and  as  such  alone 


142  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

demand  serious  attention,  are  of  two  kinds.  The  one, 
the  '  special  creation  '  hypothesis,  presumes  every  species 
to  have  oriscinated  from  one  or  more  stocks,  these  not 
being  the  result  of  the  modification  of  any  other  form  of 
living  matter,  or  arising  by  natural  agencies,  but  being 
produced  as  such  by  a  supernatural  creative  act.  The 
other,  the  so-called  '  transmutation'  hypothesis,  considers 
that  all  existing  species  are  the  result  of  pre-existing 
species,  and  those  of  their  predecessors,  by  agencies 
similar  to  those  which  at  the  present  day  produce  va- 
rieties and  races,  and  therefore  in  an  altogether  natural 
way  ;  and  it  is  a  probable,  though  not  a  necessary  con- 
sequence of  this  hypothesis,  that  all  living  beings  have 
arisen  from  a  single  stock.  With  respect  to  the  origin  of 
this  primitive  stock  or  stocks,  the  doctrine  of  the  origin 
of  species  is  obviously  not  necessarily  concerned.  The 
transmutation  hypothesis,  for  example,  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  either  the  conception  of  a  special  creation  of 
the  primitive  germ  or  w^ith  the  supposition  of  its  hav- 
ing arisen,  as  a  modification  of  inorganic  matter,  by 
natural  causes."     ("  Lay  Sermons,"  pp.  279,  280.) 

1.  Professor  Huxley  has  here  correctly  stated"  the 
question  between  the  hypotheses  of  creation  and  evolution 
as  a  question  concerning  the  origin  of  species.  Varieties 
are  constantly  being  produced  under  the  operation  of 
changes  of  climate,  and  all  the  varied  agencies  we  em- 
brace under  the  general  name  of  "  cultivation  ;"  and 
they  are  constantly  disappearing,  too,  when  neglected, 
under  the  operation  of  the  general  law  of  "  reversion  to 
type."  The  appearance  and  disappearance  of  varieties 
is  taking  place,  from  time  to  time,  under  our  eyes  ;  and 
though  but  imperfectly  understood  as  yet,  it  has  long 
been  a  subject  of  study  to  man.  Not  so  witli  species. 
The  appearance  of  a  new  species  man  has  never  seen. 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  143 

"  Some  varieties  of  form,"  writes  the  Duke  of  Argyll, 
"  are  effected  in  a  few  am'mals  by  domestication  and  by 
constant  care  in  tlie  selection  of  peculiarities  transmissi- 
ble to  the  young.  But  these  variations  are  all  within 
certain  Jimits,  and  wherever  human  care  relaxes  or  is 
abandoned  the  old  forms  return,  and  the  selected  char- 
acters disappear.  The  founding  of  new  forms  by  the 
union  of  different  species,  even  when  standing  in  close 
natural  relation  to  each  other,  is  absolutely  forbidden  by 
the  sentence  of  sterility  which  nature  pronounces  and  en- 
forces upon  all  hybrid  offspring.  And  so  it  results  that 
man  has  never  seen  the  origin  of  any  species.  Creation 
by  birth  is  the  only  kind  of  creation  he  has  ever  seen  ; 
and  from  this  kind  of  creation  he  has  never  seen  a  new 
species  come."     (''  Primeval  Man,"  pp.  39,  40.) 

In  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  creation,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  of  two  kinds — viz, :  the  making  out  of  nothing,  as  in 
his  words,  ''  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven 
and  the  earth,"  and  the  making  out  of  pre-existing 
materials,  as  in  his  words,  "  God  created  man  in  His 
own  image,"  of  which  creation  he  afterward  says,  "  And 
the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  earth."  It 
is  with  creation  in  the  latter  sense  alone  we  have  to  do  at 
present  ;  and  in  this  sense  creation  is  just  as  natural  a 
way  of  originating  a  species  as  evolution  is.  If  man  has 
never  seen  a  sj^ecies  originated  by  creation,  neither  has 
he  ever  seen  a  species  originated  by  evolution.  The 
origination  of  species,  in  whatever  way  it  has  been 
effected,  belongs  to  an  era  that  is  long  passed.  The 
testimony  of  science  on  this  point  is  at  one  with  that  of 
Moses.  (§  16.)  If  all  have  seen  new  individuals  evolved, 
developed,  from  a  living  germ,  under  the  operation  of 
vital  forces,  so  have  all  seen  new  individuals  created  out 
of  inorganic  matter,  "  the  dust  of  the  earth,"  under  the 


14:4  NATURE   AInD    REVELATION". 

operation  of  these  same  vital  forces.  No  phenomenon  is 
more  familiar  than  that  of  making  a  plant,  in  all  the  per- 
fection of  its  completed,  living  structure,  out  of  water, 
carbonic  acid,  and  ammonia. 

On     Professor   Huxley's   statement,  that   creation   is 
supernatural,  we  remark,  creation   is  supernatural  only 
on  the  condition  that  we  banish  God  from  nature.     The 
term  supernatural,  as  used  by  Spencer,  Huxley,  and  other 
writers  of  the  class  to  which  they  belong,  is  "  in  the 
highest  degree  ambiguous  and  deceptive.     It   assumes 
that  the  system  of    '  nature  '  in  which  we  live  and  of 
which   we   form   a   part   is  limited  to  purely  physical 
agencies,   linked  together  by  nothing    but   mechanical 
necessity.     There  might  indeed  be  no  harm  in  this  limi- 
tation of  the  word  nature  if  it  could  possibly  be  adhered 
to.     But  it  is  not  possible  to  adhere  to  it,  and  that  for 
the  best  of  all  reasons,  because  even  inanimate  nature, 
as  we  habitually  see  it  and  are  obliged  to  speak  of  it,  is 
not  a  system  which  gives  us  the  idea  of  being  governed 
and  guided  by  mechanical  necessity.     No  wonder  men 
lind  it  difficult  to  believe  in  the  supernatural,  if  by  the 
supernatural  they  mean  an  agency  which  is  nowhere  pres- 
ent in  the  visible   and   intelligible   universe,  or    is   not 
implicitly  represented  and  continually  reflected  there  ; 
for  indeed,  in  this  sense,  no  Christian  can  believe  in  the 
supernatural,  in  a  creation  from  which  the  creator  has 
been  banished,  or  has  withdrawn  himself.     On  the  other 
hand,  if  by  the  supernatural  we  mean  an  agency  which, 
while  ever  present  in  the  material  and  intelligible  universe, 
is  not  confined  to  it,  but  transcends  it,  then  indeed  the 
difficulty  is  not  in  believing  it,  but  in  disbelieving  it. 
No  man  can  really  hold  that  the  material  system  which 
is  visible  or  intelligible  to  us  is  anything  more  than  a 
fragment  of  a  part.     No  man  can  believe  that  its  existing 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGOKY.  145 

arrangements  of  matter  and  force  are  self- caused,  self- 
originated,  and  self-sustained.  It  is  not  possible,  there- 
fore, so  to  '  crib,  cabin,  and  confine  '  our  conceptions  of 
natnre  as  to  exclude  elements  which  essentially  belong 
to  what  is  called  the  supernatural.  And  there  is  another 
reason  why  it  is  impossible  to  adhere  to  such  conceptions 
of  the  natural,  and  that  is,  that  it  would  compel  us  to 
exclude  the  mind  of  man,  and  indeed  the  lesser  minds  of 
all  living  things,  from  oar  scientific  definitions  of  natnre, 
and  to  establish  an  absolute  and  rigorous  separation 
between  all  of  these  and  the  world  in  which  they  mos^e 
and  act.  We  have  seen  not  only  ho^v  impracticable  such 
a  separation  is,  but  how  false  it  is  to  the  facts  of  science. 
This  same  condemnation  must  fall  on  every  conception 
of  the  universe  which  assumes  this  separation  as  not  only 
important,  but  fundamental.  Yet  this  is  the  very  separa- 
tion on  wdiich  those  philosophers  absolutely  depend  who 
condemn  what  they  call  the  supernatural  in  our  concep- 
tions and  explanations  of  the  world."  (''Unity  of 
E'ature,"  pp.  27-i,  275.) 

§  52.  Huxley'^ s  Objection  to  Creation  as  Subject  to  no 

Law. 

"  A  phenomenon  is  explained  when  it  is  shown  to  be  a 
case  of  some  general  law  of  nature  ;  but  the  supernatural 
interposition  of  the  Creator  can,  by  the  nature  of  the 
case,  exemplify  no  law  ;  and  if  species  have  arisen  in 
this  way,  it  is  absurd  to  attempt  to  discuss  their  origin." 
("Lay  Sermons,"  p.  282.) 

Creation,  if  it  be  the  work  of  an  almighty  and  wise 
creator,  and  wrought  with  a  special  end  in  view — and 
such  is  the  character  of  the  creation  which  is  generally 
believed  to  be  taught  in  the  Mosaic  cosmogony — is  as 
fully  subject  to  law  as  evolution  can  possibly  be.     The 


146  KATURE   AND    EEVELATIOl?". 

proof  of  tliis  statement  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  it 
furnishes  us  with  as  simple  and  complete  an  exphanation 
of  "  the  gradual  advance  in  the  type  of  living  creatures 
and  the  natural  grouping  of  plants  and  animals  as  any 
system  of  evolution  can." 

Let  us  examine  a  case  of  creation— creation  in  the 
sense  of  making  out  of  pre-existing  material — as  closely 
analogous  to  that  of  the  origin  of  species  as  our  limited 
experience  can  furnish  us— viz. :  the  case  of  the  various 
form-s  of  habitation,  or  house,  which  man  has  con- 
structed for  himself.  The  bark  hut,  the  log  cabin,  the 
substantial  farm-house,  the  brown-stone  city  residence, 
and  the  marble  palace  have  succeeded  eacli  other  in 
regular  order,  from  "the  primordial  to  the  most  per- 
fect," as  civilization  has  advanced.  But  these  are  not  the 
only  variations  we  meet  with.  In  Eussia  houses  are  built 
:svith  thick  walls  and  with  openings  small  and  few  in  num- 
ber, and  capable  of  being  tightly  closed.  In  the  southern 
United  States  houses  are  built  with  many  and  large  doors 
and  windovrs,  and  open  piazzas.  In  Yenezuela  they  are 
built  on  piles,  so  as  to  be  safe  from  floods.  In  China 
they  are  slight  structures  of  bamboo,  and  in  some  parts 
of  Africa  hollow  hemispheres  of  dried  mud.  These  are 
all  variations  determined  by  ''environment."  Man's 
wants  have  led  him  to  build  honses  for  other  purposes 
than  his  own  inhabitation  ;  and  hence  we  have  barns,  and 
warehouses,  and  cotton  factories,  and  railroad  depots, 
and  churches,  and  court-houses,  and  forts,  each  differing 
from  all  the  others  in  certain  particulars,  the  exact  nature 
of  their  "  diflerentiation  "  being  determined  by  the  pur- 
pose they  were  intended  to  serve.  In  all  these  different 
forms  of  structure  there  are  certain  "homologies" 
which  arrest  our  attention,  such  as  their  all  possessing 
floors,   and  walls,  and  roof,  and  openings  of  some  kind 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGON"Y.  147 

or  other  ;  and  there  are,  at  the  same  time,  differences, 
whicli  adapt  each  to  some  particular  end  or  use.  Tliere 
is  an  order  which  pervades  the  whole  ;  and  these  homol- 
Oiries  and  differences  would  furnish  a  basis  for  a  natural 
classiiication  of  houses,  if  we  were  disposed  to  make  such 
classification. 

How  shall  we  account  for  all  this  ?     Had  we  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  way  in  which  this  result  has  been  produced, 
some  might  say  the  bark  hut  ''  evolved  "  the  log  cabin, 
and  the  log  cabin  "  evolved"  the  substantial  farm-house, 
and  the  Yeneziielian  house  built  upon  piles  was  the  result 
of  "  the  survival  of  the  fittest ;"  and  they  might  say  this 
for  many  of  the  same  reasons  that  similar  assertions  are 
made  respecting  orders  and  species  in  the  organic  world. 
In  this  instance,  however,  none  will  say  this,  because  we 
all  know  that  this  orderly  variation  is  the  result  of  human 
power,  acting  under  the  guidance  of  human  intelligence, 
and  for  the  attainment  of  a  definite  end.     All  these  dif- 
ferent structures  are  the  product  of  man's  creative  power, 
and  not  of  evolution,  natural  or  artificial.     And  there  is 
evidently  a  law  that  has  governed  this  creation — viz. :  the 
law  of  adaptation  to  a  specific  end,  that  is  just  as  truly  a 
law,  and  just  as  certain  in  its  operation  as  the  law  of 
"  the  survival  of  the  fittest,"  or  any  other  law  which  the 
evolutionist  has  imagined  to  govern  the  origin  of  species. 

§  53.  Huxley^ 8  Ohjection  to   Creation  as  Implying  an 
Extravagant  Expenditure  of  Divine  Power. 

''A  section  a  hundred  feet  thick  "  of  a  certain  rock 
stratum  in  England  "  will  exhibit,  at  different  heights, 
a  dozen  species  of  anmionites,  none  of  which  passes  from 
its  particular  zone  of  limestone  or  clay  into  the  zone 
below  it,  or  into  that  above  it  ;  so  that  those  who  adopt 
the  doctrine  of  a  special  creation  must  be  prepared  to 


148  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

admit  that  at  intervals  of  time,  corresponding  with  the 
thickness  of  those  beds,  the  Creator  thought  fit  to  inter- 
fere with  the  natural  course  of  events,  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  new  ammonite.  It  is  not  easy  to  transplant 
one's  self  mto  the  frame  of  mind  of  those  who  can  accept 
such  a  conclusion  as  this  on  any  evidence  short  of  abso- 
lute demonstration."  (''  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  281.) 
On  this  objection  of  Professor  Huxley  I  remark  : 

1.  Instead  of  using  the  simple  term  '' creation  "  to 
designate  a  mode  of  the  origin  of  species,  he  uses  the  ex- 
pression '^  special  creation,"  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by 
most  evolutionists  in  writing  on  the  subject.  With  the 
atheistic  evolutionist  this  is  well  enough,  but  not  so  with 
the  theistic  evolutionist,  who  regards  evolution  '' as  a 
mode  of  creation."  The  origination  of  a  species  by 
evolution  is  as  much  a  "  special  creation  "  in  his  view  of 
the  matter  as  the  origination  of  a  species  in  any  other 
way.  The  proper  term,  if  any  qualifying  word  is  to  be 
used,  is  not  ^'special,"  but  '' immediate."  Immediate 
creation  is  the  only  proper  correlative  to  creation  by 
evolution. 

2.  The  force  of  Professor  Huxley's  objection  rests 
entirely  upon  a  misconception*  of  the  nature  of  God  and 
the  nature  of  His  connection  with  our  world  during  the 
period  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony.  According  to  Scripture, 
God  is  everywhere  present  and  ever  active  in  the  affairs 
of  the  world.  This  truth  Paul  taught  the  Athenians  in  his 
words — "  In  Him"  (God) ''  we  live,  and  move,  and  have 
our  being."  (Acts  17  :  28.)  And  our  Lord  taught  the 
same  doctrine  with  even  greater  emphasis — "  Are  not  two 
sparrows  sold  for  a  farthing  ?  and  one  of  them  shall  not 
fall  on  the  ground  without  your  Father.  But  the  very 
liairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered. "  (Matt.  10  :  29,  30.) 
The  era  of  creation,  the  era  of  the  origin  of  species,  the 


THE   MOSAIC   COSMOGONY.  149 

era  covered  by  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  lias  passed.  It 
closed  with  the  creation  of  man.  (§  46.)  During  that 
period  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  God  was  just  as  everywhere 
present  and  ever  active  in  the  work  of  creation  as  He  is 
in  the  present  era  in  the  work  of  Providence.  To  have 
brought  into  being  successively  and  after  short  inter- 
vals a  number  of  ammonites  was  at  that  time  no  ''  inter- 
ference with  the  natural  course  of  events,"  for  that  was 
the  era  of  creation.  If  there  are  a  hundred  different 
species  of  animals  to  be  brought  into  being,  it  will  call 
for  no  greater  expenditure  of  power  to  create  them  in 
succession  than  to  create  them  all  at  once  ;  and  if  they 
are,  in  their  structure,  specially  adapted  to  certain  con- 
ditions of  a  gradually  imj^roving  world,  wisdom  would 
require  that  each  should  be  created  jnst  when  and  where 
the  improving  world  becomes  fitted  to  furnish  it  a  home. 

§  54.  Points  at  which  the  Hypothesis  of  Evolxition 
Breaks  Down. 

Besides  the  objections  to  the  hypothesis  of  evolution 
presented  in  our  separate  consideration  of  it,  there  is  an 
additional  one  which  presents  itself  when  we  examine 
the  claims  to  our  acceptance  of  evolution  and  creation  as 
competing  claims,  and  that  is,  that  evolution  fails  us  at 
two,  if  not  three  most  important  points  in  making  out  a 
complete  cosmogony — viz.:  (1)  At  the  beginning  of  tlie 
existence  of  the  matter  of  the  world.  That  the  world 
had  a  beginning  science  testifies  in  unmistakable  terms  ; 
and  evolution  can  give  us  no  account  of  that  beginning. 
We  are  compelled  to  fall  back  upon  the  explanation  con- 
tained in  the  words,  ''  In  tlie  beginning  God  created 
the  heaven  and  the  earth."  (Gen.  1  :  1.)  (2)  At  the 
beginning  of  life.  ^'  No  conclusion  of  modern  science  is 
more  widely  received   or  more  confidently  maintained 


150  NATURE    AND.  REVELATION. 

than  that  which  teaches  that  in  the  earlj  history  of  onr 
planet  hfe  was  unknown.  Not  only  was  it  not  actual, 
l)Lit  it  was  not  possible.  Life  then  was  not,  but  life  now 
is.  Life  then  had  a  beginning.  Wliat  was  that  beginning  ? 
and  whence'^"  (Wainwright's  '^Scientific  Sophism," 
ch.  8.)  Here,  again,  evolution  is  dumb,  and  Darwin  is 
compelled  to  begin  his  series  with  "  certain  primordial 
living  beings."  (-3)  At  the  origin  of  man,  bearing  as  he 
does  "  the  image  of  God."  It  is  true  that  Darwin  and 
Huxley  have  attempted  to  trace,  or,  rather,  to  imagine, 
the  evolution  of  man  from  some  lost  form  of  anthro- 
poid ape  ;  but  most  of  our  sober  scientists  to-day  regard 
what  Huxley  calls  ^'  the  great  gulf  in  intellectual  and 
moral  matters  which  lies  between  man  and  the  wdiole 
of  the  loAver  creation"  as  an  impassable  gulf  to  any  and 
every  method  of  evolution.  At  these  three  points — and 
they  are  most  important  points  in  any  system  of  cos- 
mogony, far  more  so  than  the  passage  of  any  one  species 
of  plant  or  animal  to  the  species  next  above  it — evolu- 
tion utterly  fails  us,  and  creation  furnishes  the  only  in- 
telligible and  credible  explanation  which  has  ever  been 
given. 

In  his  article  on  ''  Tlie  Ofigin  of  Species,"  Professor 
Huxley  has  a  beautiful  passage,  to  which  I  will  ask  the 
reader's  attention.  Speaking  of  growth-development  in 
its  earlier  stages,  he  writes  :  "  Examine  the  recently  laid 
egg  of  some  common  animal,  such  as  a  salamander  or  a 
newt.  It  is  a  minute  spheroid,  in  which  the  best  micro- 
scope will  reveal  nothing  but  a  structureless  sac,  en- 
closing a  glairy  fluid,  holding  granules  in  suspension. 
But  strange  possibilities  lie  dormant  in  that  semi-fluid 
globule.  Let  a  moderate  supply  of  warmth  reach  its 
watery  cradle,  and  the  plastic  matter  undergoes  changes 
so  rapid  and  yet  so  steady  and  purpose-like  in  their  sue- 


THE   MOSAIC    COSMOGONY.  151 

cession  that  one  can  only  compare  tliem  to  tlioso  operated 
by  a  skilled  modeller  upon  a  formless  lump  of  clay.  As 
with  an  invisible  trowel,  the  mass  is  divided  and  sub- 
divided into  smaller  and  smaller  portions,  until  it  is  re- 
duced to  an  aggregation  of  granules,  not  too  large  to 
build  withal  the  finest  fabric  of  the  nascent  organism. 
And  then  it  is  as  if  a  delicate  finger  traced  out  the  line 
to  be  occupied  by  the  spinal  column,  and  moulded  the 
contour  of  the  body,  pinching  up  the  head  at  one  end, 
the  tail  at  the  other,  and  fashioning  flank  and  limb  in 
due  salamandrine  proportions  in  so  artistic  a  way  that, 
after  watching  the  process  hour  by  hour,  one  is  almost 
involuntarily  possessed  by  the  notion  that  some  more 
subtile  aid  to  vision  than  an  achromatic  would  show  the 
hidden  artist,  with  his  plan  before  him,  striving  with 
skilful  manipulation  to  perfect  his  work."  (''  Lay  Ser- 
mons," pp.  260,  261.)  This  "hidden  artist,  with  his 
plan  before  him,"  is  just  what  the  doctrine  of  creation 
brings  to  our  knowledge,  working  not  in  these  variations 
of  growth-development  alone,  but  in  all  the  variations  of 
nature  as  w^ell — a  living  Creator,  and  not  a  dead,  insensate 
law. 

§  55.    Conclusion, 

Heturning  now  to  the  question  with  which  we  started, 
"Why  is  it  that  while  the  cosmological  speculations  of 
the  Egyptians  and  the  Greeks— the  two  foremost  nations 
of  antiquity — have  come  to  be  universally  regarded  as 
myths,  the  cosmogony  of  Moses,  in  the  light  of  this  our 
nineteenth  century,  "  controls  the  thoughts  of  nine  tenths 
of  the  civilized  world  "  ?  We  answer,  in  addition  to  the 
reason  already  given,  that  it  is  so  intertwined  with  the 
record  of  what  nine  tenths  of  the  civilized  world  regard 
as  the  only  true  religion,  that  it  must  be  believed  as 
widely  as  that  religion  prevails  ;  there  is  a  second  reason, 


152  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

wliicli  the  reader  is  now  prepared  to  apjDreciate — viz. :  that 
while  science,  in  its  progress,  has  shown  the  cosmogonies 
of  the  Egyptians  and  the  Greeks  to  be  incredible  and 
puerile,  it  has  shown,  more  and  more  clearly,  the  cor- 
rectness, in  all  important  particulars,  of  the  cosmogony 
of  Moses.  When,  for  a  time,  there  has  seemed  to  be 
some  discrepancy  between  the  conclusions  of  science 
and  the  statements  of  Moses — and  this  has  occurred  more 
than  once — further  and  more  thorough  investigation  has 
always  removed  that  discrepancy,  and  this  to  such  an 
extent  that  if  the  geologist  attempts  to-day  to  wTite 
out  a  scientific  cosmogony,  he  finds  himself  compelled  to 
make  it,  in  all  its  leading  particulars,  the  cosmogony  of 
Moses. 


Y. 

THE   PENTATEUCH.^ 

§  56.   ''  The  Higher  Criticism.'^'^ 

The  first  five  books  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
called  by  the  Jews  "the  Torah" — i.  e.,  the  law,  or 
'*  Torath  Moslieh" — i.e.^  the  Law  of  Moses,  are  by 
Christian  writers  generally  styled  the  Pentateuch. 

The  manuscrijDts  of  the  Pentateuch  form  a  single  roll, 
or  volume,  and  are  divided  not  into  books,  but  into 
larger  and  smaller  sections.  The  division  into  five  books, 
as  we  have  it  in  our  English  Bible,  was  probably  made 
by  the  Greek  translators  in  preparing  the  Septuagint,  as 
the  titles  of  the  several  books  are  of  Greek  and  not  He- 
brew origin. 

As  far  back  as  we  can  trace  its  history,  the  Pentateuch 
has  been  regarded  by  Jewish  as  well  as  Christian  writers, 
with  rare  exceptions,  as  written  by  Moses,  and  as  credible 
history.  Of  late  this  opinion  has  been  assailed  under 
the  guise  of  what  is  popularly  styled  '^  the  higher 
criticism." 

What  is  this  higher  criticism,  and  what  does  it  pro- 
fess ?  What  it  is,  is  a  question  we  will  be  better  prepared 
to  answer  at  a  later  stage  of  this  discussion.  What  it 
professes,  is  to  judge  of  and  decide  all  questions  respect- 
ing the  interpretation,  the  authorship,  and  the  credibility 

*  The  substance  of  this  paper  was  originally  delivered  as  three  dis- 
courses in  the  First  Presbj'terian  Church,  Norfolk,  in  June,  1883, 
and  subsequently  published  in  pamphlet  form. 


154  NATURE    AND    REVELATIOX. 

of  the  several  parts  of  Scripture,  just  as  we  would  similar 
questions  respecting  any  other  book.  In  the  words  of 
Hobertson  Smith,  one  of  the  ablest  among  the  British 
advocates  of  this  higher  criticism,  "  the  ordinary  laws 
of  evidence  and  good  sense  must  be  our  guides.  And 
these  we  must  apply  to  the  Bible,  just  as  we  should  do 
to  any  other  ancient  book."  (''  The  Old  Testament  in 
the  Jewish  Church,"  Lecture  I.)  Bightly  understood, 
no  one  can  object  to  such  a  proceeding  as  this.  How  the 
higher  critics  understand  it  we  shall  see  in  the  course  of 
our  investigation. 

What  are  the  conclusions  to  which  the  higher  critics 
have  come  in  applying  their  criticism  to  the  Scriptures  ? 
To  this  question  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  definite  answer, 
for  no  two  of  them  agree  in  their  conclusions.  Confin- 
ing our  attention  to  the  Pentateucli  : 

Professor  Robertson  Smith  comes  to  the  conclusion 
that  a  small  part  of  Exodus — viz, :  ch.  21-23 — and  the 
first  eleven  chapters  of  Deuteronomy  were  written  by 
Moses  ;  but  by  far  the  larger  part  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
w^ritten  in  the  days  of  Josiah — was,  in  fact,  "  the  book 
of  the  law"  found  in  repairing  the  Temple  (see  2  Kings 
22),  eight  hundred  years  after  Moses'  day  ;  and  the  re- 
mainder is  made  up  of  traditions  first  reduced  to  writ- 
ing after  the  Captivity  in  Babylon,  probably  by  Ezra, 
two  hundred  years  later  still — these  last-mentioned  por- 
tions being  ascribed  to  Moses,  in  order  to  give  them 
greater  authority  among  the  Jews. 

The  conchisions  to  which  Professor  Crawford  II.  Toy, 
of  Harvard,  the  latest  American  writer  on  the  side  of 
*'the  higher  criticism,"  comes,  I  will  give  you  in  his 
own  words.  In  his  ''  History  of  the  Eeligion  of  Israel " 
he  writes  : 

^'  A  comparatively  large  law  book  was  written  (Deu- 


THE    PENTATEUCH.  155 

teronomy,  about  b.c.  622)  ;  and  this,  in  accordance 
with  the  ideas  of  the  times,  which  demanded  the  author- 
ity of  ancient  sages  and  lawgivers,  was  ascribed  to  Moses. 
,  .  .  After  various  Jaw  books  had  been  written  they 
were  all  gathered  up,  sifted,  and  edited  about  the  time 
of  Ezra  (b.c.  450)  as  one  book.  This  is  substantially  our 
present  Law  {Tora)  or  Pentateuch"  (pp.  6,  Y). 

''  Nations  do  not  easily  change  their  gods  ;  it  is  not 
likely  that  Moses  could  or  would  introduce  a  new  deity. 
But  as  the  Israelites  believed  that  he  had  made  some 
great  change,  it  may  be  that  throngh  his  means  the  wor- 
ship of  Yah  we  became  more  general — became,  in  fact, 
in  a  real  sense,  the  national  worship.  This  would  not 
necessarily  mean  that  no  other  deities  were  worshipped. 
.  .  .  Still  less  would  it  mean  that  there  was  only  one 
God — that  is,  that  all  other  pretended  gods  were  nothing. 
This  is  what  we  believe,  and  what  the  later  Israelites 
(about  the  time  of  the  Exile  and  on)  believed  ;  but  David 
and  generations  after  him  tliought  that  Kemosli  and 
Dagon  and  the  rest  were  real  gods,  only  not  gods  of 
Israel.  Exactly  what  Moses'  belief  was  we  do  not  know. 
Probably,  it  may  be  said,  he  thought,  as  people  in  his 
day  generally  did,  that  there  were  a  great  many  gods, 
that  each  nation  had  its  own  deity  or  deities  ;  but  he 
wished  Israel  to  worship  only  Yahwe.  And,  in  point  of 
fact,  they  did  remain  faithful  to  Yahwe,  till  at  last  they 
abandoned  all  others"  (p.  24). 

^'  If  we  cannot  suppose  that  the  Pentateuch  is  correct 
history,  then  we  do  not  know  precisely  what  Moses  did 
for  his  people.  Did  he  try  to  make  them  more  humane 
as  well  as  more  spiritual  ?  It  seems  that  in  those  days  they 
were  half  barbarians.  Was  Moses  a  reformer  like  the 
Athenian  Solon  ?  It  is  hard  to  say.  .  .  .  From  all  that 
we  do  know  we  are  led  to  believe  that  what  Moses  did 


156  XATURE    AND    REVELATIOX. 

was  rather  to  organize  the  people  and  give  them  an  im- 
pulse in  religion  than  to  frame  any  code  of  laws  or  make 
any  great  change  in  their  institutions.  In  after  years  it 
became  the  fashion  to  think  of  him  as  the  author  of  al- 
most all  the  religious  customs  of  the  land  ;  as  the  divinely 
appointed  lawgiv^er  who  received  his  instructions  {Tora, 
the  Israelites  called  it)  from  the  mouth  of  Yahwe  him- 
self. But  it  is  not  very  important  for  us  to  be  able  to 
say  that  Moses  did  just  this  and  that.  Under  the  guid- 
ance of  God  Israel  grew  in  wisdom,  and  worked  out  a 
great  Tora^  an  instruction  in  righteousness  ;  and  it  mat- 
ters little  to  us  whether  it  was  Moses  or  somebody  else 
who  had  the  chief  part  in  it.  But  it  is  probable  that  he 
was  a  great  man,  and  did  much  for  his  people"  (pp. 
25,  26)!" 

"  The  March  from  Goshen  to  Canaan. — After  leav- 
ing Egypt  the  Israelites  seem  to  have  moved  from 
place  to  place  in  the  northern  part  of  Arabia,  where  they 
spent  some  time  before  reaching  Canaan.  Their  route 
is  described  in  a  general  way  in  the  books  of  Deuter- 
onomy (1-3  and  10  :  6,  7),  Exodus  (14-19),  and  Numbers 
(10-14:,  20-22)  ;  and  there  is  a  list  of  stations  (an  itinerary) 
in  ^Numbers  33.  But  these  ^vere  written  so  lono:  after 
the  events  occurred  that  we  cannot  rely  on  their  correct- 
ness. Whether,  in  leaving  Goshen,  they  crossed  the 
upper  part  of  the  Red  Sea,  or  skirted  the  Sirbonian  Lake, 
or  went  some  other  way,  there  is  at  present  no  mean-s  of 
determining.  There  was  in  later  times  a  firm  belief 
among  the  Israelites  that  they  had  spent  some  time  at 
Mount  Sinai,  in  the  peninsula  called  by  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  Arabia  Petrrea,  and  tliat  there  the  law  was  given 
by  God  through  Moses.  We  know  now  that  it  was  not 
there  that  God  gave  Israel  its  law  ;  but  the  people,  or  a 
part  of  them,  may  have  stayed  there  awhile.     Thence 


THE    PENTATEUCH.  157 

they  marched  northward  toward  the  Dead  Sea,  and  per- 
haps approached  their  new  land  in  two  divisions — one 
on  the  east  and  one  on  tlie  west  of  the  sea"  (p.  27). 

I  have  quoted  thus  largely  from  Dr.  Toy's  book  for 
two  reasons  :  (1)  It  is  the  first  attempt  made,  in  so  far 
as  I  know,  to  bring  the  conclusions  of  the  higher  criticism 
to  the  attention  of  the  mass  of  the  people.  His  "  His- 
tory of  the  Religion  of  Israel"  was  prepared  for  the 
use  of  Sabbath-schools,  is  published  by  the  Unitarian 
Sunday-school  Society,  Boston  ;  and  as  the  secretary  of 
that  society  states  in  the  Ceiitury  Magazine  for  July, 
18S5,  is  one  of  tliree  books  in  common  use  with  the  ad- 
vanced classes  in  the  Sunday-schools  of  that  denomina- 
tion ;  and  (2)  it  seems  to  me  that  Dr.  Toy  has  but 
honestly  and  fairly  carried  out  the  methods  of  the 
*'  higher  criticism"  to  their  legitimate  conclusions.  And 
it  is  important  in  some  cases  that  a  man  should  see  be- 
forehand whither  certain  principles  and  methods  of  criti- 
cism will  lead  him,  that  thus  he  may  be  induced  to  give 
a  careful  and  thorough  examination  of  them  at  the  outset. 

§  57.   Tlie  Question  Stated. 

I  do  Dr.  Toy  no  injustice,  I  think,  when  I  state  as 
Ills  conclusions  :  (1)  That  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
believing  that  Moses  wrote  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch, 
even  the  small  portion  which  Professor  Smith  assigns 
him  ;  and  (2)  that  the  Pentateuch  is  not  ''  correct  "  or 
credible  history. 

In  opposition  to  this  the  common  faith  of  most  Jewish 
and  Christian  writers  alike  is  briefly  expressed  in  the 
words — "  The  law  was  given  to  Moses."  The  long- 
establislied  belief  of  the  Church — traditional  belief,  as 
the  higher  critics  like  to  call  it — is  that  the  Pentateuch 
was  written  by  Moses,  and  is  inspired  in   the  sense  in 


158  NATURE    AND   REVELATION. 

•which  Peter  defines  that  word — ' '  Holy  men  of  God 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  (2 
Pet.  1  :  21),  and  is  therefore  credible  history. 

Which  of  these  conclusions  shall  we  accept — that  of 
Dr.  Toy,  or  the  common  faith  of  the  Church  ?  Let  the 
principle  professedly  followed  by  the  higher  critics  as  a 
fundamental  principle  of  sound  criticism — viz.:  to  judge 
of  questions  concerning  the  Scriptures  just  as  we  would 
judge  of  similar  questions  respecting  any  other  book — 
decide. 

There  is  a  book  bearing  the  title  of  ^'  Julius  Caesar's 
Gallic  Wars"  which  is  universally  received — by  the 
higher  critics  as  well  as  others — as  written  by  the  man 
whose  name  it  bears,  and  as  credible  history.  I  select 
this  book,  because  its  author,  JuHus  Ceesar,  sustains  to 
his  history  very  much  the  same  relation  that  Moses  does 
to  the  Pentateuch  :  he  was  an  eye-witness  and  a  prin- 
cipal actor  in  most  of  the  events  which  he  records. 
Why  do  we  receive  this  book  as  authentic — i,  e.,  as  writ- 
ten by  the  man  whose  name  it  bears  ;  and  credible — i.e., 
worthy  to  be  believed  ?     Mainly  for  the  reasons  : 

1.  The  book  in  several  passages  claims  to  have  been 
written  by  Julius  Coesar,  and*  to  be  true  history. 

2.  It  has  been  quoted  and  referred  to  by  writers  in 
every  age,  from  Caesar's  day  to  the  present,  as  authentic 
and  credible. 

3.  It  bears  internal  marks  of  having  been  written  by 
Caesar,  and  of  being  true  history. 

Let  us  apply  these  rules  of  judging  to  the  case  of 
Moses  and  the  Pentateuch. 


THE    PENTATEUCH.  159 

§  58.    The  Pentateuch  claims  Moses  as  its  Author^  and 
to  he  True  History. 


Tills  claim  is  made  in  siicli  ^lassages  as  the  following 
— viz.:  "And  Moses  came  and  told  the  j)eople  all  the 
words  of  the  Lord,  and  all  the  judgments  :  and  all  the 
people  answered  with  one  voice,  and  said.  All  the  words 
which  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do.  And  Moses  wrote 
all  the  words  of  the  Lord."  (Ex.  2i  :  3,  4.)  "  And  the 
Lord  said  nnto  Moses^  Write  thou  these  imrds :  for  after 
the  tenor  of  these  words  1  have  made  a  covenant  with  thee 
and  with  Israel."  (Ex.  34:  :  27.)  '^  And  Moses  wrote 
their  goings  out  according  to  their  journeys  by  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord  ;  and  these  are  their  journeys  ac- 
cording to  their  goings  out."  (Num.  33  :  2.)  This  is 
the  introduction  to  the  itinerary  of  Israel's  travels  in  the 
wilderness,  of  which  Dr.  Toy  explicitly  denies  the  Mosaic 
authorship,  and  says  :  "  It  was  written  so  long  after  the 
events  occurred,  that  we  cannot  rely  on  its  correctness." 

''  And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto  the 
priest  the  sons  of  Levi,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Lord,  and  unto  the  elders  of  Israel.  And 
Moses  commanded  them,  saying.  At  the  end  of  every 
seven  years,  in  the  solemnity  of  the  year  of  release,  in 
the  feast  of  tabernacles,  when  all  Israel  has  come  to  ap- 
pear before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  the  place  which  he 
shall  choose,  thou  shalt  read  this  law  before  all  Israel  in 
their  hearing."  (Deut.  31  :  9-11.)  Of  a  compliance 
Vv'ith  this  requirement  thus  publicly  to  read  the  law,  we 
have  an  account  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Nehemiah, 
where  we  are  told  that  the  reading  continued  from 
"  morning  until  midday." 

''  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses  had  made  an  end 
of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  until  they 


160  KATURE   AND    REVEL ATIOliq-. 

were  finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites,  which 
bare  the  ariv  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  saying,  Take 
this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there 
for  a  witness  against  thee.  For  1  know  thy  rebelhon, 
and  thy  stiff  neck  :  behold,  while  1  am  yet  alive  with 
you  this  day,  ye  have  been  rebellious  against  the  Lord  ; 
and  how  much  more  after  my  death  V '  (Deut.  31  :  2i-27.) 
The  book  here  mentioned  is  doubtless  the  book  found  in 
the  temple  in  Josiah's  day  (see  2  Chron.  31),  about 
which  the  higher  critics  have  written  so  much. 

It  is  true  that  in  none  of  the  passages  quoted  above 
does  Moses  claim  to  have  written  all  of  the  Pentateuch  ; 
but,  fairly  interpreted,  he  certainly  does  claim  to  have 
written  the  most  important  parts  of  it,  and  some  of  the 
very  parts  of  which  the  higher  critics  deny  his  author- 
ship. 

§59.    Quotations  of  the  Pentateuch  as  Authentic  and 

Credihle. 

Before  proceeding  to  cite  these  quotations,  I  would  ask 
the  reader  to  remark  the  fact  that  the  Bible  is  not  one 
book,  written  by  one  man,  amd  at  one  time,  but  is  a  col- 
lection of  many  books,  written  by  different  men,  at 
different  times,  during  a  period  of  fifteen  centuries. 
The  Old  Testament  contains  all  the  extant  literature  of 
a  great  nation  for  a  period  of  a  thousand  years. 

1.  Beginning  with  the  oldest  of  these  books,  other 
than  the  five  books  ascribed  to  Moses — viz.  :  the  book 
of  Joshua,  who  for  a  large  part  of  his  life  was  a  contem- 
porary and  intimately  associated  with  Moses,  and  suc- 
ceeded him  in  the  leadership  of  Israel — we  read  :  ''  The 
Lord  spake  unto  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  ...  Be  thou 
Gtroug  and  very  courageous,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to 


THE  pe:n"tatelx'H.  IGl 

do  according  to  all  tlie  law^  ^vhich  Hoses  mv  servant 
cominanded  thee  :  turn  not  from  it  to  the  riglit  hand  or 
to  the  left,  that  thou  mayest  prosper  whithersoever  thou 
goest.  This  book  of  the  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy 
mouth  ;  but  thou  shalt  meditate  therein  day  and  night, 
that  thou  may  est  observe  to  do  according  to  all  that  is 
written  therein."     (Joshua  1  :  7,  8.) 

And  here  let  me  remark,  in  passing,  to  dispose  of  a 
silly  cavil,  that  the  brief  chapter  with  which  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy  closes,  and  which  contains  an  account  of 
the  death  and  burial  of  Moses,  was  doubtless  written  by 
Joshua,  and  belongs  rather  to  the  book  of  Joshua  than 
to  that  of  Deuteronomy,  the  first  mentioned  of  these 
books  being  bat  a  continuation  of  the  history  given  us 
in  the  last  mentioned. 

In  the  book  of  Judges,  which  continues  the  history  of 
Israel  for  a  period  of  three  hundred  years  from  the  date 
at  which  the  book  of  Joshua  closes,  we  read:  "Now 
these  are  the  nations  which  the  Lord  left,  ...  to  prove 
Israel  by  them,  to  know  whether  they  would  hearken 
unto  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  which  He  com- 
manded their  fathers  hj  the  hand  of  Moses.'' ^  (Judges 
3  :  1-4.) 

The  105th  and  106th  Psalms  contain  a  brief  recapitu- 
lation of  the  chief  incidents  in  the  history  of  Israel,  as 
given  in  the  Pentateuch,  cited  as  grounds  of  thanksgiv- 
ing to  God  on  the  paxt  of  Israel.  The  90th  Psalm  bears 
the  title  of,  "A  Prayer  of  Moses  the  Man  of  God.'' 
"  The  correctness  of  the  title  which  ascribes  this  psalm 
to  Moses  is  confirmed  by  its  unique  simplicity  and 
grandeur  ;  its  appropriateness  to  his  time  and  circum- 
stances ;  its  resemblance  to  the  law  in  urging  the  con- 
nection between  sin  and  death  ;  its  similarity  of  diction 
to  the  poetic  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  without  the 


162  NATURE   AND   EEVELATION. 

slightest  trace  of  imitation  or  quotation  ;  its  marked  un- 
likeness  to  the  Psalms  of  David,  and  still  more  to  those 
of  later  date  ;  and,  finally,  the  proved  impossibility  of 
plausibly  assigning  it  to  any  other  age  or  author." 
(J.  A.  Alexander.) 

•  David's  parting  charge  to  Solomon  is  in  the  words  : 
'  ^  1  go  the  way  of  all  the  earth  :  be  thou  strong  there- 
fore, and  show  thyself  a  man  ;  and  keep  the  charge  of 
the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  His  ways,  to  keep  His 
statutes,  and  His  commandments,  and  His  judgments,  and 
His  testimonies,  as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  MoseSj 
that  thou  may  est  prosper  in  all  that  thou  doest,  and 
whithersoever  thou  turnest  thyself."    (1  Kings  2  :  2,  3.) 

In  his  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the  Temple,  Solomon 
urges  as  a  reason  why  God  should  hear  the  prayers  of 
Israel  :  ^'  For  thou  didst  sci^arate  them  from  among  all 
the  people  of  the  earth,  to  be  thine  inheritance,  as  thou 
spakest  by  the  hand  of  Moses  thy  servant^  when  thou 
broughtest  our  fathers  out  of  Egypt,  O  Lord  our  God  ;" 
and  he  follows  the  prayer  with  a  blessing  of  the  people, 
in  the  words:  ''Blessed  be  the  Lord,  that  hath  given 
rest  unto  His  people  Israel,  according  to  all  that  He 
promised  :  there  hath  not  failed  one  word  of  all  His  good 
promise,  which  He  promised  by  the  hand  of  Moses  His 
servanty    (1  Kings  8  :  53,  56.) 

In  the  account  of  the  reformation  effected  in  the  days 
of  King  Hezekiah,  in  whose  reign  the  prophet  Isaiah 
lived  and  prophesied,  we  read  :  ''He  removed  the  high 
places,  and  brake  the  images,  and  cut  down  the  groves, 
and  brake  in  pieces  the  serpent  that  Moses  had  made  : 
for  unto  those  days  the  children  of  Israel  did  burn  in- 
cense to  it :  and  called  it  Nehushtan."  (2  Kings  18  :  4.) 
Of  Moses  making  this  brazen  serpent  we  have  an  account 
in  ISTumbers  21  ;  8,  9. 


THE    PENTATEUCH.  163 

At  a  later  date,  and  shortly  before  tlie  Captivity  in 
Babylon,  King  Josiah,  in  giving  direction  for  observing 
the  passover,  says  :  ''So  kill  the  passover,  and  sanctify 
yourselves,  and  prepare  your  brethren,  that  they  may  do 
according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  the  hand  of  MosesJ^^ 
And  in  the  account  of  the  observance  of  that  passover 
we  read  :  "  And  they  removed  the  burnt-offerings,  that 
they  might  give  according  to  the  divisions  of  the  families 
of  the  people,  to  offer  unto  the  Lord,  as  it  is  written  in 
the  looh  of  Moms:'     (2  Chron.  35  :  6,  12.) 

2.  As  instances  of  the  recognition  of  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  and  its  historic  credibility  by  the 
prophets,  take  tlie  following — viz.: 

By  Isaiah,  who  lived  before  the  Captivity  :  "  Then 
he  remembered  the  days  of  old.  Hoses,  and  his  people, 
saying,  Where  is  he  that  brought  them  up  out  of  the  sea 
with  the  shepherd  of  his  flock  ?  where  is  he  that  put 
his  Holy  Spirit  within  him  ?  That  led  them  by  the 
right  hand  of  Moses  with  his  glorious  arm,  dividing  the 
waters  before  them,  to  make  himself  an  everlasting 
name."     (Isaiah  63  :  11,  12.) 

By  Daniel,  who  lived  during  the  Captivity:  ''Yea, 
all  Israel  have  transgressed  thy  law,  even  by  departing, 
that  they  might  not  obey  thy  voice  ;  therefore  the  curse 
is  poured  upon  us,  and  the  oath  that  is  written  in  the 
law  of  Moses  the  servant  of  God,  because  we  have 
sinned  against  him.  And  he  hath  confirmed  his  words, 
which  he  spake  against  us,  and  against  our  judges  that 
judged  us,  by  bringing  upon  us  a  great  evil  :  for  under 
the  whole  heaven  hath  not  been  done  as  hath  been  done 
upon  Jerusalem.  As  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
all  this  evil  is  come  upon  us."     (Dan.  9  :  11-13.) 

By  Malachi,  who  lived  after  the  restoration,  and  whose 
prophecy  closes  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  :    "  Re- 


164  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

member  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my  servant,  wliicli  I  com- 
manded unto  him  in  Horeb  for  all  Israel,  with  the 
statutes  and  judgments."     (Mai.  4  :  4.) 

3.  Turning  now  to  the  New  Testament,  we  have  the 
testimony  of  the  apostles  in  such  words  as  these — viz. : 

Of  John  :   ^^  The  law  was  given  l)y  Moses.''''     (John 

1  :  ir.) 

Of  Philip  :  ''  And  Philip  iindeth  Nathan ael,  and  saith 
unto  him.  We  have  found  him,  of  whom  Moses  in  the 
law,  and  the  prophets,  did  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the 
son  of  Joseph."     (John  1  :  45.) 

Of  James  :  ''  And  after  they  had  held  their  peace, 
James  answered,  saying  :  For  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in 
every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the 
synagogues  every  Sabbath  day."     (Acts  15  :  21.) 

Of  Jude,  or  ''Judas,  not  Iscariot,"  as  he  is  called  : 
''Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the  cities  about 
them  in  like  manner,  giving  themselves  over  to  fornica- 
tion, and  going  after  strange  flesh,  are  set  forth  for  an 
example,  suffering  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire.  .  .  . 
Woe  unto  them  !  for  they  have  gone  in  the  way  of  Cain, 
and  ran  greedily  after  the  error  of  Balaam  for  reward, 
and  perished  in  the  gainsaying  of  Core."  (Jude  7,  11.) 
The  story  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  of  Cain  and  Balaam, 
and  Core  or  Korali,  is  found  in  the  Pentateuch  alone. 

Of  Peter  :  "  And  Peter  answered  unto  the  people  : 
.  .  .  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fathers,  A  Prophet  shall 
the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of  your  brethren, 
like  unto  me  ;  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all  things  whatsoever 
he  shall  say  unto  you."  (Acts  3  :  22.)  Quoted  from 
Dent.  18  :  15  : 

Of  Paul  :  "  Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam 
to  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the 
simih'tude    of    Adam's   transgression."    (Rom.  5  :  14.) 


THE   PENTA.TEUCH.  165 

''Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be 
ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud, 
and  all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  haptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  tlie  sea."  (1  Cor.  10  :  1,  2.) 
''  Now  as  Jannes  and  Jambres  withstood  Moses,  so  do 
these  also  resist  the  truth. "  (2  Tim.  3  :  8. )  The  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  generally  ascribed  to  Paul  as  its  author, 
is,  in  large  measure,  a  commentary  on  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  in  all  it  says  of  Abraham,  and  Melchisedec,  and 
Aaron,  and  of  the  patriarchs  in  its  illustration  of  the 
nature  of  faitli,  in  ch.  11,  it  takes  for  granted  the  truth 
of  the  history  contained  in  the  Pentateuch. 

4.  The  testimony  of  our  Lord  to  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch,  and  its  credibility  as  history,  is 
oft  repeated  and  explicit.  As  specimens  of  this  testi- 
mony, take  the  following — viz. : 

''  Do  not  think  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father  : 
there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  in  whom  ye 
trust.  For  had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  be- 
lieved me  :  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  beheve  not 
his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words  ?"  (John 
5  :  45-47.) 

"  They  said  therefore  unto  Him,  What  sign  showest 
Thou  then,  that  we  may  see,  and  believe  Thee  ?  what 
dost  Thou  work  ?  Our  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the 
desert ;  as  it  is  written,  He  gave  them  bread  from  heaven 
to  eat.  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Yerily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  Moses  gave  you  not  that  hread  from  heaven  ; 
but  my  Father  giveth  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven." 
(John'e  :  30,  32.) 

''  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of  you 
keepeth  the  law  ?  "Why  go  ye  about  to  kill  me  ?  The 
people  answered  and  said,  Thou  hast  a  devil :  who  goeth 
about  to  kill  Thee  ?     Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them, 


166  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

1  have  done  one  good  work,  and  je  all  marvel.  Moses 
therefore  gave  nnto  you  circumcision  (not  because  it  is 
of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers)  ;  and  ye  on  the  Sabbath 
day  circumcise  a  man.  If  a  man  on  the  Sabbath  day 
receive  circumcision,  that  the  law  of  Hoses  should  not 
be  broken  ;  are  ye  angry  at  me,  because  I  have  made  a 
man  every  whit  whole  on  the  Sabbath  day?"  (John 
7  :  19-23.) 

"When  our  Lord  had  healed  a  leper  He  ''  said  unto 
him.  See  thou  tell  no  man  ;  but  go  thy  way,  show  thyself 
to  the  priest,  and  offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded^ 
for  a  testimony  unto  them."  (Matt.  8  ;  4.)  For  the  law 
referred  to  see  Lev.  13  and  16. 

''  JSTow  that  the  dead  are  raised,  even  Moses  shoioed  at 
the  bush,  when  he  called  the  Lord  the  God  of  Abraham, 
and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob.  For  He  is 
not  a  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living. "  (Luke  20  :  37, 
38.) 

To  His  two  sorrowing  disciples  at  Emmaus  our  Lord 
said  :  ''  O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that 
the  prophets  have  spoken  :  ought  not  Christ  to  have 
suffered  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  His  glory  ?  And 
legiiming  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets.  He  expounded 
unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
Himself.'^     (Luke  24  :  25-27.) 

''  And  He  said  unto  them"  (His  apostles),  '^  These  are 
the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet  with 
you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled,  which  were  writ- 
ten in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the 
psalms,  concerning  me."     (Luke  24  :  44.) 

Such  is  the  explicit  testimony  of  prophets  and  apostles 
and  of  our  Lord  Himself,  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  and  to  its  credibility,  besides  passages  al- 
most innumerable  to  be  found  throughout  the  Old  and 


THE   PEXTATEUCH.  167 

New  Testaments,  in  wliicli,  by  fair  implication,  its 
autlienticitj  and  credibility  are  taken  for  granted.  The 
evidence  of  this  kind  for  Caesar's  anthorsliip  of '^  The 
Gallic  Wars,"  and  the  credibility  of  that  book,  is  not  a 
tithe  of  that  there  is  for  Moses'  authorship)  of  '*  the 
Law,"  and  its  truth  as  history. 

§  60.    ProjpJiets    and    Apostles    Inspired  ^    our    Lord 

Divine. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  the  testimony  of  proph- 
ets and  apostles,  and  of  our  Lord  Himself,  as  the  testi- 
mony of  ordinary  men.  But  in  forming  a  judgment 
respecting  questions  of  the  kind  before  us,  in  the  case 
of  other  books,  we  always  take  into  account  the  character 
and  probable  means  of  information  of  the  witnesses.  It 
is  a  dictate  of  common-sense  that  witnesses  should  be 
weighed  as  well  as  counted.  Prophets  and  apostles 
claim  to  have  written  under  inspiration  of  God  ;  and  our 
Lord  claims  to  be  truly  and  properly  divine,  to  be  God 
as  well  as  man  ;  and  these  facts  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count if  we  would  deal  with  the  Pentateuch  '^  just  as  we 
would  deal  with  any  other  ancient  book." 

"What  do  we  mean  by  ''  inspiration  of  God  "?  Let  us 
see  if  we  can  get  from  the  Scriptures  themselves  a  satis- 
factory definition  of  the  term  ;  and  this  is  the  more 
necessary,  because  many  writers,  especially  the  advocates 
of  the  higher  criticism,  have  jaggled  with  the  term,  until 
in  their  hands  it  has  come  to  mean  anything  or  nothing, 
as  best  snits  their  purpose. 

The  expression  is  used  in  2  Tim.  3:6:  ^'  All  Script- 
ure is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,''''  and  its  meaning 
is  determined  by  such  passages  as  the  following — viz.  ; 
*'  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake 
in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these 


168  NATURE   AXD    HEYELATIOK. 

last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son.*'  (Heb.  1  :  1,  2.) 
*'  When  ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard 
of  lis,  ye  received  it  not  as  the  w^oid  of  men,  bnt,  as  it  is 
in  truth,  the  word  of  God."  (1  Thess.  2  :  13.)  "  For 
the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man  : 
but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  w^ere  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost."  (2  Pet.  1  :  21.)  ''E"ow  we  have  re- 
ceived, not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  spirit  wdiicli 
is  of  God  ;  that  we  might  know  the  things  that  are  freely 
given  us  of  God.  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in 
the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teach eth,  but  wdiich  the 
Holy  Ghost  teacheth  ;  comparing  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual"  (or,  as  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  translates  the  last 
clause:  ^'joining  sj)iritual  things  to  spiritual  words.") 
(ICor.  2  :'l2,  13.) 

With  any  fair  interpretation,  these  passages  cannot  be 
made  to  teach  an  inspiration  less  than  :  (1)  That  in  the 
Scriptures  we  have  an  errorless  record  of  truth — a  record 
worthy  to  bear  the  name  of  the  "  Word  of  God  ;"  and 
(2)  that  an  errorless  record  of  truth  has  been  made  under 
the  direct  guidance  and  influence  of  God,  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

In  this  inspiration  God  the  Spirit  did  not  interfere 
with  the  free  and  natural  operation  of  the  writer's  own 
mind,  did  not  obliterate  his  characteristic  peculiarities  of 
thought  and  diction.  There  is  as  marked  a  difference 
in  style  between  the  historic  book  of  Genesis  and  tlie 
poetic  book  of  Isaiah  as  between  the  writings  of  Thucy- 
didesand  those  of  Homer.  And  this  is  in  perfect  accord 
wath  wdiat  experience  teaches  us  of  the  operations  of 
this  same  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  human  spirit  in  regenera- 
tion and  sanctification.  Peter  and  John  had  characteris- 
tic peculiarities  of  spirit  as  well  as  of  body  before  their 
regeneration  ;  they  retained  those  peculiarities  as  long  as 


THE    PEXTATEUCn.  169 

tliey  lived  on  earth,  and  I  doubt  not  they  will  retain 
them  evermore  :  that  in  heaven,  after  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  has  made  the  work  of  redemption  complete, 
Peter  will  be  Peter  still,  and  John  will  be  John. 

Inspiration  did  not  supersede  the  use  of  such  means  of 
information  as,  in  the  providence  of  God,  were  within 
the  writer's  reach.  Thus  Luke  writes  :  "  Forasmuch 
as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in  order  a  decla- 
ration of  those  things  which  are  most  surely  believed 
among  us,  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  which 
from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses,  and  ministers  of 
the  word  ;  it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  had  perfect 
understanding  of  all  things  from  the  very  firsts  to  write 
unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou 
mightest  know  the  certainty  of  those  things,  wherein  thou 
hast  been  instructed."  (Luke  1  :  1-L)  It  may  be  that 
Moses,  in  writing  the  book  of  Genesis,  made  use  of  tradi- 
tions current  among  his  people,  possibly  of  historic  docu- 
ments which  had  come  down  to  him  from  former  genera- 
tions. But  this  much  is  fairly  implied  in  his  writings, 
being  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God,  that  when  he  did  make 
use  of  such  information  he  was  guided  by  God  the 
Spirit  in  the  selection  of  the  material  used,  separating 
between  the  appropriate  and  inappropriate  the  true  and 
the  false.  Kothing  less  than  this  could  make  his  writ- 
ings worthy  the  title  of  ''  The  Word  of  God." 

There  are  two  questions  which  have  furnished  subject 
for  no  little  discussion  in  considering  the  matter  under 
examination — viz. :  (1)  Is  the  inspiration  of  Scripture 
jjlenary  f — i.  e. ,  full,  such  as  to  make  it  an  errorless 
record  on  all  points  on  which  it  speaks,  and  not  in  mat- 
ters of  doctrine  and  the  essentials  of  the  Christian  faith 
alone  ?  To  this  question  I  answer,  Yes  ;  it  is  plenary. 
The  original  autograph  of  the  sacred  writings  was  an 


170  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

errorless  record,  tliough  errors  may  liave,  and  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  unquestionably  have,  crept  in  in  the  process  of 
transmission  from  the  writer's  day  to  ours.  (2)  Is  in- 
spiration verhal  f  To  this  I  answer,  Not  in  the  sense 
wliich  would  make  the  writer  a  mere  amanuensis,  for  then 
w^ould  uniformity  in  style  of  thought  and  expression 
characterize  the  Scriptures  throughout,  from  Genesis  to 
Revelations  ;  but  it  is  verbal  in  such  a  sense  as  is  implied 
in  Paul's  words  :  "'  which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the 
words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  teacheth  ;  joining  spiritual  things  to  spiritual 
words"  (1  Cor.  2  :  13)  ;  and  in  our  Lord's  argument  for 
the  resurrection  :  "  But  as  touching  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  s23oken  unto 
you  by  God,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the 
God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  ?  God  is  not  the 
God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  Kving."    (Matt.  22  :  31,  32.) 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  as  plainly  taught  in 
Scripture.  Prophets  and  apostles  claim  to  have  written 
under  the  influence  of  this  inspiration — the  inspiration  of 
God  the  Spirit.  Our  Lord  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  in  such  a  sense  that  He  could  say  :  ''  He  that  hath 
seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father.','  (John  14  :  9.)  ^'  I  and 
my  Father  are  one. "  (John  10  :  30.)  And  His  whole  life 
and  teaching  abundantly  confirmed  this  claim.  Taking 
into  account  now,  as  we  w^ould  "in  the  case  of  any 
other  ancient  book,' '  the  character  of  the  v/itness,  do  I 
go  too  far  when  I  say  that  to  the  Christian  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  its  truth  as  history 
are  established  as  fully  and  firmly  as  it  is  possible  for 
testimony  to  establish  such  claims ;  that  it  comes  to  us 
sealed  with  the  double  seal  of  God  the  Spirit  and  God 
the  Son  ? 

The  Pentateuch  bears  internal  marks  of  having  been 


THE    PENTATEUCH.  171 

written  by  Moses  and  of  being  true  history.     To  this 
proposition  I  will  now  ask  the  reader's  attention. 

§  61.   The  Literary  Style  of  the  Pentateuch. 

It  is  largely  on  the  ground  of  its  literary  style  that  the 
higher  critics  reject  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, Professor  Robertson  Smith  contending  that  in 
differences  of  style  characteristic  of  different  portions  of 
it  we  have  evidence  of  the  work  of  at  least  four  different 
authors  in  the  book  usually  ascribed  to  Moses. 

The  argument  on  this  ground,  inasmuch  as  it  is  made 
up  largely  of  peculiarities  of  expression  in  the  original 
Hebrew  of  the  Pentateuch,  cannot  be  intelligibly  pre- 
sented in  a  popular  form — certainly  not  in  a  form  which 
will  place  it  within  the  reach  of  even  the  advanced 
classes  in  our  Sabbath-schools  for  whose  use  Dr.  Toy 
has  written  his  '' History  of  the  Religion  of  Israel." 
For  this  reason  it  is,  I  presume,  that  Dr.  Toy,  \w  his 
book,  gives  us  the  conclusions  to  which  his  criticism  has 
led  him,  and  says  little  or  nothing  of  the  reasons  there- 
for. For  the  same  reason,  instead  of  attempting  to  pre- 
sent the  literary  arguments  of  the  higher  critics,  I  will  ask 
your  attention  to  what  Professor  F.  L.  Patton,  of  Prince- 
ton, an  able  scholar,  and  one  of  the  first  logicians  of  our 
day  and  country,  has  written  on  the  subject.  In  an 
article  published  in  the  Presbyterian  Review  for  April, 
18S3,  he  writes  : 

"  English  readers  are  not  unfamiliar  with  the  precari- 
ous nature  of  arguments  based  on  style.  Some  of  us 
have  not  forgotten  the  discussion  of  the  question  whether 
Bacon  wrote  Shakespeare.  Stanley  Leathes,  himself  a 
Hebraist,  makes  admirable  use  of  a  controversy  carried 
on  in  tlie  cohinms  of  the  London  Times  respecting  the 
authorship  of  a  poem,  and  says  :  '  If,  some  two  hundred 


172  XATURE    A?TD    REVELATIOX. 

years  after  Milton's  death,  a  number  of  educated  English- 
men, versed  in  the  many  known  writings  of  Milton,  can- 
not agree  about  the  authorship  of  a  certain  poem  upon 
internal  evidence,  are  we  to  beheve  that  m-eat  weidit 
should  be  attached  to  the  assertion  of  a  German  critic 
who,  some  twenty-five  centuries  after  the  death  of  a 
Hebrew  prophet,  declares  positively,  upon  internal  evi- 
dence alone  (for  here  there  is  no  handwriting  to  help  us), 
that  a  series  of  poems  are  not  by  him  ? '  He  is  here 
speaking  of  what  he  calls  '  the  imaginary  figment  of  a 
second  Isaiah,'  but  the  illustration  suits  the  question  in 
hand  equally  well. 

"  It  would  have  been  better  for  the  theory  of  a  four- 
fold narrativ^e,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  had  Professor 
Smith  contented  himself  with  the  argumentuin  ad 
ignorantiam,  and  told  us  that  this  is  a  matter  which  no 
one  but  a  critic  can  understand  ;  for  in  attempting  to 
make  us  see  the  argument  upon  which  criticism  relies,  he 
has  confirmed  our  scepticism.  We  may  assume  that  in  il- 
lustrating differences  of  style  between  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
and  Deuteronomy  he  would  not  choose  the  passages  in 
which  it  is  least  apparent  ;  indeed,  when  we  read  the 
parallel  passages  in  which  he  holds  up  this  difference  of 
style  to  the  gaze  of  eyes  that  are  kindly  supposed  to  be 
unfamiliar  with  the  Hebrew  text,  we  take  it  for  granted 
that  we  have  before  us  a  crucial  instance.  As  such  we 
have  studied  it  according  to  our  light  ;  and  our  conclu- 
sion is,  that,  judging  by  the  diiferences  apparent  in  these 
passages,  the  critics  have  most  ungrudgingly  obeyed  the 
law  of  parsimony  when  they  assigned  only  four  authors 
to  the  Pentateuch.  "Why  not  forty  ?  For  we  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  by  the  same  rule  which  gives 
four  authors  and  a  redactor  to  the  Pentateuch  we  will 
undertake  to  show  that  four  authors  and  as  many  redac- 


THE   PENTATEUCH.  173 

tors  were  concerned  in  each  of  the  articles  written  by 
Professor  Smith  and  Dr.  Briggs. 

'^  But  let  us  listen  to  what  specialists  have  to  say  upon 
this  subject.  Professor  Smith  admits  that  '  literary 
criticism,  though  a  good  and  delicate  tool,  is  subject  to 
special  limitations  in  the  case  of  Hebrew,'  and  that 
'  when  carried  beyond  a  certain  point  it  arouses  suspi  - 
cion. '  Professor  Curtis  tells  us  there  is  '  need  of  great 
caution  in  accepting  the  analysis  of  the  critics.'  Dr. 
Green  regards  the  recent  right-about-face  as  to  the  order 
of  the  Elohist  and  Jehovist  as  '  a  fresh  demonstration  of 
the  precarious  and  inconclusive  nature  of  the  entire  j^roc- 
ess  of  argument.'  Stanley  Leathes  pronounces  '  un- 
satisfactory and  unsound  tlie  results  of  criticism  which 
arise  from  the  application  of  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic 
theory  to  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.'  '  Imagi- 
nary and  unreasonably  arbitrary,'  says  Dr.  McCaul, 
speakiug  of  the  Elohistic  question  ;  and  Dr.  Harold 
Brown  puts  his  estimate  upon  the  theory  that  denies  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  Genesis  when  he  says  :  ^  The 
romance  of  modern  criticism  is  as  remarkable  as  its  per- 
verse ingenuity. ' ' ' 

§  62.  Incidental  Confirmation. 

In  the  case  of  historical  writing,  unexpected  confirma- 
tions of  their  incidental  statements,  by  other  writings  of 
admitted  authority,  properly  have  great  weight  in  deter- 
mining such  questions  as  that  before  us.  As  instances  of 
this  sort  of  confirmation  of  the  authenticity  and  credi- 
bility of  the  Pentateuch,  take  the  following — viz. : 

1.  In  Gen.  -il  :  14:  we  read  :  ''  Then  Pharaoh  sent 
and  called  Joseph,  and  they  brought  him  hastily  out  of 
the  dungeon  :  and  lie  shaved  himself^  and  changed  his 
raiment,  and  came  in  unto  Pharaoh."     On  this  Ilengsten- 


174  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

berg  remarks  :  '^  Even  the  most  prejudiced  mind  in  tins 
incidental  notice  recognizes  a  purely  Egyptian  custom. 
Herodotus  mentions  it  among  the  distinguishing  peculiari- 
ties of  the  Egyptians,  that  they  commonly  were  shaved, 
but  in  mourning  they  allowed  the  beard  to  grow.  The 
sculptures  also  agree  with  this  representation. "  "So  par- 
ticular," says  Wilkinson,  "  w^ere  they  on  this  point,  that 
to  have  neglected  it  was  a  subject  of  reproach  and  ridi- 
cule ;  and  whenever  they  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of 
a  man  of  low  condition  or  a  slovenly  person,  the  artist 
represented  him  with  a  beard. "  '  ^  Although  foreigners, " 
says  the  same  author,  "  who  were  brought  to  Egypt  as 
slaves  had  beards  on  their  arrival  in  the  country,  we  find 
that  as  soon  as  they  were  employed  in  the  service  of  this 
civilized  peoj^le  they  were  obliged  to  conform  to  the 
cleanly  habits  of  their  masters  :  their  beards  and  head 
were  shaved,  and  they  adopted  a  close  cap."  (''  Egypt 
and  the  Books  of  Moses. ' ') 

2.  In  Gen.  43  :  31-33  we  read  :  "  And  he"  (Josepli) 
"washed  his  face,  and  went  out,  and  refrained  himself, 
and  said,  Set  on  bread.  And  they  set  on  for  him  by  him- 
self, and  for  them  by  themselves,  and  for  the  Egyptians, 
which  did  eat  with  them,  by  themselves  :  because  the 
Egyptians  might  not  eat  bread  w^ith  the  Hebrews  ;  for 
that  is  an  abomination  unto  the  Egyptians.  And  they  sat 
before  him."  On  this  account  Ilengstenberg  remarks  : 
"  Herodotus  tells  us  that  the  Egyptians  abstained  from 
all  familiar  intercourse  with  foreigners,  since  these  were 
unclean  to  them,  especially  because  they  slew  and  ate  the 
animals  which  were  sacred  among  the  Egyptians.  There- 
fore (since  the  Egyptians  honor  much  the  cow)  no 
Egyptian  man  or  woman  will  kiss  a  Greek  upon  the 
mouth.  They  also  use  no  knife  or  fork  or  kettle  of  a 
Greek,  and  will  not  eat  the  flesh  of  any  clean  beast  if  it 


THE    PENTATEUCH.  175 

has  been  cut  up  with  a  Greek  knife.  The  circumstance 
that  Joseph  eats  separately  from  the  other  Egyptians  is 
strictly  in  accordance  with  the  great  difference  of  rank 
and  the  spirit  of  caste  which  prevailed  among  the 
Egyptians." 

^'  It  appears  from  v.  33  that  the  brothers  of  Joseph 
sat  before  him  at  the  table,  while,  according  to  patriarchal 
practice,  they  were  accustomed  to  recline.  It  appears 
from  the  sculptures  that  the  Egyptians  also  were  in  the 
habit  of  sitting  at  table,  although  they  had  couches. 
Sofas  were  used  for  sleeping.  In  a  painting  in  Hosellini 
each  one  of  the  guests  sits  upon  a  stool,  which,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  custom,  took  the  place  of  the  couch." 
("  Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,"  pp.  37,  38.) 

3.  In  his  '^  Origin  of  I*^ations"  Canon  E-awlinson 
writes  :  "  What,  then,  has  ethnographical  science,  fol- 
lowing a  strictly  inductive  method,  and  wholly  freed 
from  all  shackles  of  authority,  concluded  on  the  matter 
before  us  ?  A  single  passage  from  the  greatest  of  modern 
ethnologists  will  suffice  to  show." 

*•  There  was  a  time,"  says  Professor  Max  Miiller, 
'^  when  the  ancestors  of  the  Celts,  the  Germans,  the 
Sclaves,  the  Greeks  and  Italians,  the  Persians  and  the 
Hindoos  were  living  together  beneath  the  same  roof, 
separated  from  the  Semitic  and  Turanian  races."  And 
again  :  '^  There  is  not  an  English  jury  nowadays  which, 
after  examining  the  hoary  documents  of  language,  would 
reject  the  claim  of  a  common  descent  and  a  legitimate 
relationship  between  Hindoo,  Greek,  and  Teuton." 
Ethnological  science,  we  see,  regards  it  as  morally  cer- 
tain, as  proved  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  the 
chief  races  of  modern  Europe,  the  Celts,  the  Germans, 
the  Grceco-Italians,  and  the  Sclaves,  had  a  common  origin 
with  the  principal  race  of  Western  Asia,  the  Indo-Per- 


176  K"ATUPtE    AND    llEVELATIOX. 

sian.  Now  this  result  of  advanced  modern  inductive 
science — a  result  which  it  is  one  of  the  proudest  boasts 
of  the  nineteenth  century  to  have  arrived  at — is  almost 
exactly  that  which  Moses,  writing  fifteen  hundred  years 
before  the  Christian  era,  laid  down  dogmatically  as  a 
simple  historical  fact  in  Gen.  10  :  2."  (''  Origin  of 
Kations,"  ^.  176.) 

4.  A  very  curious  ''  undesigned  confirmation  "  of  the 
history  contained  in  Genesis  has  lately  been  brought  to 
light.  In  his  study  of  the  pa23yri  and  inscriptions  in  the 
tombs  which  especially  concern  the  daily  life  and  habits 
of  the  Egyptians,  Brugsch-Bey,  one  of  the  best  informed 
among  the  Egyptologists  of  the  present  day,  has  made 
out  what  may  be  called  an  Egyptian  ^'  price-current  "  of 
the  days  of  Joseph.  According  to  this,  a  slave  sold  for 
$9.73,  an  ox  for  31  cents,  a  goat  for  7^-jy  cents,  a  pair  of 
fowls  for  1  cent,  a  razor  for  3 J  cents.  (Osborn's  "  An- 
cient Egypt,"  p.  82.)  If  we  turn  now  to  Gen.  37  :  28 
we  read  :  *'  And  "  (they)  ''  sold  Joseph  to  the  Ishmaelites 
for  twenty  pieces  of  silver  :  and  they  brought  Joseph 
into  Egypt."  The  piece  of  silver  was  doubtless  the 
silver  shekel,  worth,  at  that  time,  according  to  best 
authority,  a  little  less  than  fifty  cents  of  our  money, 
the  twent}^  pieces  of  silver  corresponding  almost  exactly 
to  the  $9.73  of  the  old  Egyptian  ''  j)rice-current. " 

§  63.   The  Character  of  the  Communications. 

The  character  of  the  communications  and  the  style  of 
thought  and  reasoning  of  a  book  often  furnish  important 
evidence  respecting  its  age  and  authorship. 

The  Pentateuch  contains  a  communication,  commonly 
spoken  of  as  the  ''moral  law "  or  ''Ten  Command- 
ments," which  the  author  claims  to  have  received  directly 
from  God  ;  first,  as  spoken  in  audible  words  from  the 


THE    PEiTTATEUCH.  177 

top  of  Sinai,  and  afterward  on  '^  two  tables  of  stone, 
written  with  the  finger  of  God."  According  to  this 
claim,  God  is  the  author  of  this  law  in  a  very  peculiar 
sense.  Does  the  nature  and  style  of  this  law  correspond 
to  such  a  claim  ? 

In  a  little  tract  published  by  the  American  Tract 
Society  many  years  ago,  an  eminent  lawyer  gives  the 
following  brief  summary  of  the  moral  law,  with  his  own 
remarks  thereon:  '^  I  have  been  looking,"  writes  he, 
*'  into  the  nature  of  that  law.  I  have  been  trying  to  see 
Avhether  1  can  add  anything  to  it  or  take  anything  from 
it,  so  as  to  make  it  better.     1  cannot.     It  is  perfect. 

"  The  first  commandment  directs  us  to  make  the 
Creator  the  object  of  our  supreme  love  and  reverence. 
This  is  right.  If  lie  be  our  Creator,  Preserver,  and 
Supreme  Benefactor,  we  ought  to  treat  Him,  and  none 
other,  as  such. 

**  The  second  forbids  idolatry.     That  certainly  is  right. 

'^  The  third  forbids  profaneness. 

'^  The  fourth  finds  a  time  for  religious  worship.  If 
there  be  a  God,  He  ought  surely  to  be  worshipped.  It  is 
suitable  that  there  should  be  an  outward  homage,  sig- 
nificant of  our  inward  regard.  If  God  is  to  be  w^or- 
shipped,  it  is  proper  that  some  time  should  be  set  apart 
for  that  purpose,  when  all  may  worship  Him  harmoni- 
ously and  without  interruption.  One  day  in  seven  is 
certainly  not  too  much,  and  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  too 
little. 

^'  The  fifth  defines  the  peculiar  duties  arising  from  the 
family  relations. 

'^  Injuries  to  our  neighbor  are  then  classified  by  the 
moral  law.  They  are  divided  into  offences  against  life, 
chastity,  property,  and  character.  And,  applying  a  legal 
idra,  I  notice  that  tlie  greatest  offence  in  each  class  is 


178  NATURE   A:N"D    EEVELATIOl!^. 

expressly  forbidden.  Thus,  tlie  greatest  injury  to  life 
is  murder  ;  to  chastity,  adultery  ;  to  property,  theft  ;  to 
character,  perjury,  l^ow,  the  greater  oiience  must  in- 
clude the  less  of  the  same  kind.  Murder  must  include 
every  injury  to  life  ;  adultery,  every  injury  to  purity, 
and  so  of  the  rest.  And  the  moral  code  is  closed  and 
perfected  by  a  command  forbidding  every  improper 
desire  in  re^^ard  to  our  nei,g:hbor. 

'^  Where  did  Moses  get  that  law  ?  I  have  read  his- 
tory. The  Egyptian  and  adjacent  nations  were  idolaters  ; 
so  were  the  Greeks  and  Romans  ;  and  the  wisest  and  best 
Greeks  or  Romans  never  gave  a  code  of  morals  like  this. 
"Where  did  Moses  get  this  law,  which  surpasses  the  wisdom 
and  philosophy  of  the  most  enlightened  age  ?  He  lived 
at  a  period  comparatively  barbarous,  but  he  has  given  a 
law  in  which  the  learning  and  sagacity  of  all  subsequent 
time  can  detect  no  flaw.  Where  did  he  get  it  ?  He 
could  not  have  soared  so  high  above  his  age  as  to  have 
devised  it  himself.  It  must  have  come  from  heaven.'''^ 
And  this  is  just  what  is  affirmed  respecting  it  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch. 

j  As  Rousseau,  after  a  careful  study  of  the  character  of 
Christ  Jesus  as  set  forth  in  the  Gospel,  said,  ''It  is 
more  inconceivable  that  a  number  of  men  should  a^ree 
to  write  such  a  history  than  that  one  should  furnish  the 
subject  of  it,"  so  we  may  say  respecting  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, It  is  more  inconceivable  that  any  man  of  the 
age  and  people  among  whom  they  first  appeared  should 
have  written  them  than  that  they  were  "  written  on  two 
tables  of  stone,  by  the  linger  of  God,"  as  is  affirmed  in 

•  the  Pentateuch. 

In  our  examination  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  its  credibility,  we  have  now  apphed  the 
tests  by  which  similar  questions  respecting  other  ancient 


THE   PEITTATEUCH.  179 

books — '^  Csesars  Gallic  Wars,"  for  example — are  deter- 
mined ;  and,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  brought  out,  1  see 
not  how  any  thonghtful  man  can  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  Moses,  that  it  is 
true  history,  and,  as  it  claims,  written  under  inspiration 
of  God. 

§  64.  The  Dwine  Element  in  the  Authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  Ignored  hy  the  Higher  Critics. 

Professor  Pobertson  Smith  writes  :  ''  We  must  not  be 
afraid  of  the  human  side  of  Scripture.  It  is  from  that 
side  alone  that  scholarship  can  get  at  any  hibliccd  ques- 
tion^  And  again  :  ''  The  first  condition  of  a  sound 
understanding  of  Scripture  is  to  give  full  recognition  to 
the  human  side,  to  master  the  whole  situation  and  char- 
acter and  feelings  of  each  human  interlocutor  who  has  a 
part  in  the  drama  of  revelation.  I^ay^  the  whole  husi- 
ness  of  scholarly  exegesis  lies  within  this  human  side.'''' 
C  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  Lecture 
I.)  There  is  a  sense  in  which  these  declarations  of  Pro- 
fessor Robertson  Smith  may  be  true  ;  but  in  the  sense 
which  he  puts  upon  them  in  his  subsequent  critical  ex- 
amination of  the  Scriptures — i.e.^  that  we  must  deal  with 
them  as  if  they  were  simply  a  human  production,  like 
any  other  ancient  book — they  are  not  true. 

The  Scriptures  claim  both  a  divine  and  a  human 
agency  in  their  production — ''  Holy  men  of  God  spake" 
— there  is  the  human  agency  ;  ^'  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost"  (1  Pet.  21  ;  21)— there  is  the  divine 
agency.  There  is  a  true  sense  in  which  the  Bible  is  a 
God -made  book,  and  Ave  cannot  deal  fairly  with  it,  judge 
of  it  just  as  we  would  judge  of  any  other  ancient  book, 
if  we  ignore  this  fact  ;  and  a  disreii:ard  of  it  must  inevit- 
ably lead  us  into  error. 


^»' 


180  NATURE  AND   REVELATION. 

In  our  day  tlie  art  of  making  artificial,  man-made 
flowers  lias  been  carried  to  great  perfection,  especially  in 
the  city  of  Paris — to  such  perfection,  that  it  is  sometimes 
difficult  to  distinguish,  at  a  little  distance,  between  them 
and  the  natural,  God-made  flowers  grown  in  our  gar- 
dens. If  we  ignore  this  distinction,  and  treat  all  flowers 
as  man-made,  it  w^ill  lead  to  the  greatest  absurdities. 
For  example,  take  to  the  best  artificial  rose-maker  in 
Paris  a  glass  of  water  and  a  handful  of  charcoal,  and  ask 
her  to  make  you  a  rose  of  them  ;  w^ill  she  be  much  to 
blame  if  she  thinks  you  crazy  ?  And  yet  that  is  the 
very  material  out  of  which  the  most  beautiful  God-made 
rose  has  been  constructed.  Or  suppose  I  take  a  natural 
rose,  one  that  has  grown  in  my  garden,  and  attempt  to 
answer  the  question,  "Where  was  it  produced  ?  It  is 
very  perfect  in  its  form  and  structure,  much  more  so 
than  the  roses  made  in  New  York  or  Philadelphia ;  it 
must  have  been  made  in  Paris.  And  this  is  the  only 
rational  conclusion  to  which  I  can  come  if  all  roses  are 
artificial,  man-made. 

Not  one  whit  more  reasonable  than  tliis  is  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  higher  critics  from  Gen.  36  :  31  :  ^'  And 
these  are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom, 
before  tliere  reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of 
Israel,"  that  this  portion  of  Genesis,  at  the  least,  must 
liave  been  written  after  the  days  of  Saul,  the  first  king 
of  Israel.  The  inference  is  reasonable  if  the  book  has 
no  divine  element  in  its  authorship  ;  but  if  it  has  such 
an  element,  if  in  a  true  sense  of  the  expression  the  book 
is  God-made,  then  this  passage  mnst  l)e  regarded  as 
nothing  more  than  an  instance  of  predictive  prophecy, 
and  is  worthy  of  no  more  attention  in  fixing  the  date  of 
the  book  than  Gen.  35  :  11 — '^  And  God  said  unto  him, 
I  am  God  Almighty  :  be  fruitful  and  multiply  ;  a  nation 


THE   PENTATEUCH.  181 

and  a  company  of  nations  shall  be  of  tliee,  and  kings 
shall  come  out  of  thy  loins." 

§  65.   The  Truth  of  the  Hypothesis  of  E'volution  As- 
sumed hy  the  Higher  Critics. 

The  higher  critics  utterly  ignore  the  divine  agency  in 
man's  progress  in  civilization  and  religion,  and  assume 
that  all  such  progress  has  been  made  throngh  the  agency 
of  human  reason  alone,  and  by  a  regular  process  of  de- 
velopment or  evolution.  Dr.  Toy  writes  :  '^  The  facts 
that  have  come  to  our  knowledge  make  it  probable  that 
all  the  ancient  or  national  religions  originated  in  the 
same  way,  and  grew  according  to  the  same  laws.  The 
differences  between  them  are  the  differences  between  the 
peoples  to  whom  they  belong.  Up  to  a  certain  point  in 
their  development  they  are  all  alike,  and  then  they  begin 
to  show  their  local  peculiarities.  Of  the  earliest  stage  of 
Israel's  religion,  the  fetishistic,  we  know  almost  noth- 
ing ;  when  we  find  them  in  Canaan  they  are  polytheist, 
like  their  neighbors — that  is,  they  have  separated  the 
Deity  from  the  objects  of  nature,  and  regard  these  last 
as  symbols  of  the  Godhead.  Thus  much  of  their  re- 
ligious career  belongs  to  the  general  history  of  ancient 
religions."  (''History  of  the  Keligion  of  Israel," 
p.  148.) 

In  common  with  the  advocates  of  the  theory  of  the 
evolution  of  man  from  the  brute,  Dr.  Toy  here  assumes 
that  man,  as  man,  began  his  course  upon  tlie  earth  as  the 
most  ignorant,  debased,  and  superstitious  savage  ;  and 
gradually,  by  his  own  efforts  continued  through  ages, 
worked  out  a  civilization  and  a  religion  for  himself ; 
that  God,  having  created  man — if,  indeed.  He  did  create 
him,  a  pitiable  troglodyte,  like  the  Digger  Indians  of  the 
West — left  him  to  work  out  his  destiny  as  best  he  could  ; 


182  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

and  anything  inconsistent  with  this  monstrous  hypothesis 
he  treats  as  irrational  and  unworthy  of  credit. 

In  irreconcilable  opposition  to  all  such  assumptions  as 
this,  the  Bible  tells  us  that  ''  God  said,  Let  us  make  man 
in  our  own  image,  after  our  likeness  :  and  let  them  have 
dominion  over  the  iish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of 
the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth,  and 
over  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth. 
So  God  created  man  in  His  own  image,  in  the  image  of 
God  created  created  He  him  ;  male  and  female  created  He 
them."  (Gen.  1  :  26,  27.)  "  Thou madest him"  (man) 
^'  a  little  lower  than  tlie  angels,  and  liast  crowned  him  vutli 
glory  and  honor.  Thou  madest  him  to  liave  dominion 
over  the  work  of  thy  hands."  (Fs.  8  :  6,  6.)  CiviHzed 
man  ''  has  dominion  over  the  work  of  God's  hands"  to- 
day— over  the  steam  which  drives  our  machinery  and 
the  electricity  which  carries  our  messages  around  the 
earth,  not  because  he  has  grown  into  a  giant  mightier 
than  they,  but  because  he  has  learned  the  fixed  laws 
which  govern  these  agents,  and  through  the  oj)eration  of 
these  laws  compels  them  to  do  his  bidding.  Of  any 
other  kind  of  dominion  than  this  we  know  nothing  ; 
and  so  we  conclude  that  when  God  ^'  set  man  over  the 
work  of  His  hands,"  He  must  have  imparted  to  him  a 
knowledge  of  creation  very  far  in  advance  of  that  pos- 
sessed by  the  Digger  Indians. 

In  consistency  with  this  idea  of  man's  condition  at  the 
beginning,  we  read,  in  the  tliird  chapter  of  Genesis,  of 
the  division  of  labor  :  '^  Abel  was  a  keej)er  of  sheep,  but 
Cain  was  a  tiller  of  the  ground  ;"  of  the  building  of  cities  : 
*'  And  he  builded  a  city,  and  called  the  city  after  the 
name  of  his  son  Enoch  ;"  of  mechanics  and  metallurgists  : 
'^  Tubal  Cain  was  an  instructor  of  every  artilicer  in  brass 
and  iron  ;"    and   of   music    and    musical  instruments : 


THE    PENTATEUCH.  183 

^'  Jiibal  was  tlie  father  of  all  siicli  as  handle  the  harp  and 
the  organ" — all  of  tliem  marks  of  an  advanced  civiliza- 
tion. We  read  also  of  Abel  and  Cain  as  engaging  in 
the  pnblic  worship  of  God  :  the  one,  by  bloody  sacrifice, 
which  he  '^  offered  in  faith"  (Ileb.  11  :  4),  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  religion  of  the  Gospel  ;  the  other,  by 
his  offering  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground,  the  representative 
of  "  natural  religion" — the  two  great  phases  of  religious 
thought  among  the  civilized  peoples  of  to-day.  From 
this  condition  of  advanced  civilization  the  Scriptures 
teach  us  that  man  sank  from  generation  to  generation, 
through  the  degrading  influence  of  sin,  until  Christianity, 
in  its  form  of  world-wide  activity,  commenced  its  re- 
claiming work.  On  many  tribes  and  peoples  Christian- 
ity has  not  yet  been  brought  to  bear,  and  they  are  the 
troglodytes  and  cannibals  of  to-day  in  ''  the  paleolithic 
or  old  Stone  Age"  of  their  existence.  Among  others  it 
has  long  been  at  work — e.  g.,  the  peoples  of  Great  Britain 
and  America,  and  they  lead  the  van  of  civilization,  and 
dominate  the  world. 

With  this  scriptural  idea  of  the  course  of  civilization, 
the  facts  of  authentic  history  and  the  monuments  of 
antiquity  all  agree.  The  oldest  civilization  of  whicli  we 
can  learn  anything  w^ith  certainty  outside  the  records  of 
Scripture  is  the  Egyptian  ;  and  among  the  monuments 
of  this  Egyptian  civilization  the  grandest  are  confessedly 
the  oldest  ;  and  the  oldest  form  of  Egypt's  religion  is 
the  purest.  So  it  is  w^itli  the  Assyrian  and  Indian  civili- 
zations, the  written  and  monumental  records  of  which 
have  lately  been  disentombed.  On  our  western  conti- 
nent the  civilization  of  the  empire  of  the  Incas,  in  South 
America,  was  far  in  advance  of  that  of  their  descendants 
in  our  time.  The  mouldering  temples  of  Central 
America  and  the  rock-cities  of  New  Mexico   tell   the 


184  ATUKE   AN"D    REVELATION". 

same  story.  Standing  on  the  lieiglit  of  our  modern 
civilization,  and  looking  awaj  into  the  long-passed,  the 
farthest  off  of  the  objects  distinctly  seen  are  the  pyramids 
and  temples  of  Egypt  ;  and  then  the  palaces  and  great 
cities  of  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates  ;  and  then  the  rock- 
hewn  tem23les  and  old  pagodas  of  India  and  China — all 
telling,  not  of  savage  man,  working  up  through  sheer 
force  of  intellect  from  savagery  to  civilization,  but  of 
civilized  man  sinking  lower  and  lower  from  generation 
to  generation  ;  all  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  assump- 
tion of  the  higher  critics  ;  all  confirming  the  simple  story 
of  the  Bible. 

^  QQ.   Conclusion. 

Returning  now  to  the  question  with  which  we  started, 
and  which  was  then  remitted  to  a  future  sta^fe  of  the 
discussion — What  is  the  ''  higher  criticism  "?  1  answer, 
It  is  a  system  of  '^  destructive  criticism,"  false  in  some 
of  the  most  important  and  fundamental  of  its  assump- 
tions, partial  and  unfair  in  its  application  of  sound 
criteria  of  judgment  to  questions  concerning  the  author- 
ship and  credibility  of  the  several  parts  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Scriptures,  especially  the  Pentateuch,  and  unre- 
liable in  its  methods,  even  wli^ere  those  methods  are  least 
open  to  objection. 

Carried  out  to  its  legitimate  results,  as  it  is  in  Dr. 
Toy's  ''  History  of  the  Religion  of  Israel  "  : 

1.  It  taliGs  away  from  us  the  Bihle  as  ^' the  Word 
of  God^''''  though  Dr.  Toy  would  doubtless  repudiate 
such  a  conclusion.  But  how  can  a  j^lain  man  look  upon 
a  book  as  ""  The  Word  of  God,"  which  is  but  a  mass  of 
fables  and  falsehoods? — e.g.^  a  book  which  holds  up 
Abraham  as  "the  father  of  the  faithful"  and  "the 
friend  of  God,"  when,  in  fact,  he  was  but  a  savage 
fetich- worshipper  ;  and  this  he  must  have  been  if  Israel 


THE    PP:NTATEUCn.  185 

did  not  emerge  from  fetichism  until  their  settlement  in 
Canaan  ;  a  book  wliicli  tells  ns  of  Moses  as  the  man  by 
whom  '^  the  law  was  given  "  at  Sinai,  when,  in  fact,  it 
is  doubtful  if  Moses  was  ever  at  Sinai,  and  the  law  was 
not  written  until  a  thousand  years  after  Moses  died,  and 
then  was  written  out  by  some  old  priest  or  prophet,  and 
palmed  upon  the  people  under  the  false  pretence  that  it 
was  Moses'  work,  in  order  to  give  it  authority  in  Israel. 

2.  It  tctkes  from  %is  Christianity  as  a  supernatural 
religion  revealed  hy  God^  though  Dr.  Toy  would  prob- 
ably repudiate  this  conclusion  also.  But  how  can  it  be 
avoided  if  the  religion  of  Israel — substantially  the  Chris- 
tianity of  Great  Britain  and  America  to-day — like 
Buddhism  and  Confucianism,  is  but  one  of  the  ^'  national 
religions,  wliicli  all  originated  in  the  same  way,  and  all 
grew  according  to  the  same  laws"  ? 

"  Let  no  man  deceive  you  with  vain  words."  (Eph. 
5:6.)  It  is  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  our  holy  religion, 
whicli  is  in  controversy.  The  '^  higher  criticism,"  in  its 
practical  development  in  our  day,  is  but  an  attack  "  within 
the  walls,"  just  as  the  atheism  of  Hegel  and  Ingersoll  is 
an  attack  from  without.  We  need  not,  we  do  not,  fear 
the  result.  We  have  the  Master's  assurance  that  His 
Church,  with  all  that  is  precious  in  the  Gospel  which  it 
enshrines,  'Ms  built  upon  a  rock,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it." 


YL 
PEOYIDENCE    AND    PEAYER. 

^  67.  A  Statement  of  Pi'ofessor  Huxley. 

''The  history  of  every  science,"  writes  Professor 
Huxley,  ''is  but  the  history  of  the  ehmination  of  the 
notion  of  creative  or  other  interference  with  the  natural 
order  of  the  phenomena  which  are  the  subject-matter  of 
that  science.  When  astronomy  was  young  '  the  morn- 
ing stars  sang  together  for  joy,'  and  all  the  planets  were 
guided  in  their  courses  by  celestial  hands.  Now  the 
harmony  of  the  stars  has  resolved  itself  into  gravitation 
according  to  the  inverse  squares  of  the  distances,  and  the 
orbits  of  the  planets  are  deducible  from  the  laws  of  forces 
which  allow  a  schoolboy's  stone  to  break  a  w^indow. 
The  lightning  w\ns  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  but  it  has 
pleased  Providence  in  these  modern  times  tliat  science 
should  make  it  the  humble  messenger  of  man,  and  we 
know  that  every  flash  which  shimmers  above  the  horizon 
on  a  summer  evening  is  determined  by  ascertainable  con- 
ditions, and  that  its  direction  and  brightness  might,  if 
our  knowledge  of  these  were  great  enough,  have  been 
calculated. 

"  The  solvency  of  great  mercantile  companies  rests  on 
the  validity  of  the  laws  which  have  been  ascertained  to 
govern  the  seeming  irregularity  of  that  human  life  which 
the  moralist  bewails  as  the  most  uncertain  of  things  ; 
plague,  pestilence,  and  famine  are  admitted  by  all  but 
fools  to  be  the  natural  results  of  causes,  for  the  most 


PROVIDENCE   AND    PRAYER.  187 

part,  fully  within  Imman  control,  and  not  the  unavoid- 
able tortures  inflicted  by  wratliful  Omnipotence  upon  His 
helpless  handiwork. 

^'  Harmonious  order  governing  eternally  continuous 
progress,  the  web  and  w^oof  of  matter  and  force  inter- 
twining by  slow  degrees,  without  a  broken  thread,  that 
veil  which  lies  between  us  and  the  Infinite,  that  universe 
which  alone  we  know  and  can  know,  such  is  the  picture 
which  science  draws  of  the  world  ;  and  in  proportion  as 
any  part  of  that  picture  is  in  unison  with  the  rest,  so 
may  we  feel  sure  that  it  is  rightly  painted."  ("  Lay 
Sermons,"  pp.  282,  283.) 

In  the  above-quoted  extract  from  Huxley's  "  Lay  Ser- 
mons "  we  have  a  statement  (1)  of  the  practical  effect  of 
the  progress  of  science  upon  man's  conceptions  of  nature  ; 
and  (2)  a  picture  of  our  cosmos — ^.  e.,  '"'  the  world  as  a 
beautiful  system,"  such  as  atheistic  materialism  would 
fain  have  us  believe  them  to  be,  from  the  pen  of  one 
competent,  if  any  man  is,  to  do  his  subjects  justice. 

§  68.  J^ect  of  Modern  Science  on  Man^s   Conception  of 

Nature. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  many  phenomena  which 
*'  in  the  youth  and  imperfection  of  science  "  men  were 
unable  to  explain — i.e..,  to  trace  to  the  operation  of  some 
general  law,  and  which,  on  that  account,  they  ascribed 
to  the  immediate  interposition  of  a  being  above  matter, 
and  ruling  over  it — the  being  whose  existence  Huxley 
acknowledges  under  the  titles  of  "Providence,"  "the 
Infinite,"  in  the  progress  of  science  have  been  explained. 
This  must,  of  necessity,  be  the  case  ;  for  the  progress  of 
science  consists  essentially  in  our  becoming  more  and 
more  fully  accpiainted  with  the  laws  and  properties  of 
matter.     Yet  is  it  true  that  in  our  day  there  is  a  vastly 


iSS  MATURE    AND    REYELATIOX. 

greater  number  of  phenomena  whicli  thouglitfiil  men, 
familiar  with  all  that  science  can  teach  them  respecting 
the  natnre  and  laws  of  matter,  feel  constrained  to  ascribe 
to  the  agency  of  a  supermaterial  power,  call  it  Provi- 
dence, or  the  Infinite,  or  what  yon  will,  than  there  was 
'^  in  the  youth  and  imperfection  of  science." 

In  entertaining  this  belief ,  there  is  no  ^interference 
with  the  natural  order  of  phenomena"  necessarily  im- 
plied unless  we  give  to  the  term  nature  a  narrow,  un- 
scientific definition,  which  will  exclude  the  mind  of  man, 
and,  indeed,  the  lesser  minds  of  all  living  things,  as  well 
as  God  Himself,  from  nature.  Onr  cosmos  is  a  com- 
plicated machine,  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  something 
more  than  a  mere  machine.  Man  is  "wonderfully 
made,"  but  at  the  same  time  he  is  something  more  than 
"  the  cunningest  of  nature's  clocks."  Nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  there  are  forces  at  work  around  us  other 
than  the  forces  inherent  in  matter,  and  forces  often 
mightier  than  they. 

§  69.  Huxley^ s  Picture  of  our  Cosmos  Incomjylete. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  law  reigns  throughout  the 
universe;  that  "matter  and  force,"  in  so  far  as  the 
forces  inherent  in  matter  are  concerned,  are  subject  to 
law,  and  hence  that  the  phenomena  resulting  there- 
from, where  we  have  learned  the  law,  may  be  made  the 
subject  of  calculation.  This  is  true  in  cases  such  as  the 
operation  of  gravity  on  the  planetary  bodies,  where  we 
have  to  deal  with  a  definite  force  and  a  definite  bodv  : 
and  also  in  cases  such  as  the  average  length  of  human 
life,  where  we  have  to  deal  with  a  number  of  results, 
each  by  itself,  in  so  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  most  uncer- 
tain. As  Professor  Iluxley  says,  "  The  solvency  of 
great  mercantile  companies ' ' — our  life-insurance  organi- 


PROVIDENCE    AND    PRAYER.  189 

zations — ^^  rest  upon  the  validity  of  the  laws  which  have 
been  ascertained  to  govern  the  seeming  irregularities  of 
that  human  life  which  the  moralist  bewails  as  the  most 
uncertain  of  things."  In  both  instances  law  governs, 
but  laws  very  different  in  their  kind  ;  the  one,  a  definite 
law  of  force  ;  the  other,  the  law  of  averages,  or,  as  it  is 
more  commonly  called,  the  law  of  probabilities. 

^'  The  reign  of  law  "  throughout  our  cosmos  is  wide- 
spread— universal  if  you  please — but  it  is  very  far  from 
justifying  the  belief  that  it  is  a  mere  machine,  or  the 
conclusions  of  fatalism.  The  picture  which  true  science, 
taking  account  of  all  the  elements  in  the  complex  problem 
under  examination,  gives  us  is  not  the  picture  described 
in  Huxley's  words — "  Harmonious  order  governing  eter- 
nally continuous  progress,  the  web  and  woof  of  matter 
and  force,  interweaving  by  slow  degrees,  without  a  broken 
thread,  that  veil  which  lies  between  us  and  the  lufinite, 
that  universe  which  alone  we  know  and  can  know."  It 
is  in  a  very  different  sense  from  that  in  which  we  use 
the  term  QtiacMne  when  speaking  of  man's  handiwork, 
we  must  use  it  when  we  apply  it  to  the  world  in  which 
we  live  and  of  which  we  form  a  part. 

A  true  picture  of  our  world  is  made  up  of  hills  and 
valleys,  rivers  and  deserts,  giant  oaks  and  beautiful  lilies, 
and  living  animals  in  great  variety  of  form  and  size  ; 
but  along  with  these,  and  just  as  real  as  they,  are  every- 
where mingled  cities  and  cultivated  fields,  palaces  and 
hovels,  ships  and  railroad  trains,  statues  and  paintings, 
and  all  the  vast  variety  of  ^vorks  of  art  which  minister 
to  man's  tastes  and  necessities.  The  description  which 
science  gives  of  our  world  must  take  account  of  forces 
other  than  those  imminent  in  lifeless  matter,  such  as 
gravitation  and  heat — forces  which  have  originated  with 
intelhgent  living   beings — e.(j.^  the   forces   which  have 


190  NATURE   AND    REVELATION. 

transformed  the  oak  into  a  ship  or  raih'oad  car,  and  then 
direct  its  movements  with  reference  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  a  certain  definite  j^urpose.  Living  animals  be- 
long to  the  j)icture  just  as  truly  as  lifeless  matter.  The 
free  will-power  of  intelligent  man  is  just  as  real  a  force 
in  nature  as  gravitation  and  heat,  and  in  the  actual 
course  of  events  an  equally  effective  force. 

Let  us  examine  a  particular  instance  of  the  operation 
of  this  free  will-power  of  intelligent  man,  that  we  may 
see  how  it  works  without  any  conflict  with  that  "  reign 
of  law  "  which  is  maintained  in  the  material  world.  A 
merchant  wishes  to  transport  a  cargo  of  cotton  from  this 
country  to  Great  Britain,  making  use  of  the  wind  as  a 
motive  power  in  crossing  the  ocean.  Did  the  wind  blow 
steadily  in  the  direction  in  which  his  vessel  must  sail,  the 
problem  would  be  a  very  simple  one.  All  he  would 
need  to  do  would  be  to  raise  a  sail  and  commit  his  vessel 
to  the  conduct  of  the  winds.  But,  in  fact,  experience 
tells  him  that  a  wind  blowing  steadily  in  the  direction  ia 
which  he  wishes  his  vessel  to  sail,  and  for  the  length  of 
time  required  by  his  contemplated  voyage,  is  not  to  be 
expected.  Did  he  simply  raise  a  sail,  variable  as  the 
winds  are,  his  ship  would  be  as  likely  to  be  driven  to 
South  America  or  wrecked  on  some  desert  island  as  to 
reach  Great  Britain.  What  shall  he  do  ?  He  has  learned 
the  law  of  "  the  composition  and  resolution  of  forces," 
and  that  this  law  governs  the  operation  of  the  wind-force 
he  desires  to  make  use  of.  He  therefore  trims  his  sails 
in  obedience  to  this  law,  and  so  the  winds  from  almost 
every  quarter  are  made  to  propel  his  vessel  in  the  one 
direction  which  he  has  selected.  In  substantially  the 
same  way  it  is  that  all  the  forces  inherent  in  matter  are 
made  subject  to  man's  control.  By  selecting  his  instru- 
ments and  shaping  his  course  in  conformity  to  the  laws 


PROVIDENCE  AND  PRAYER.  191 

wliicli  govern  the  operation  of  these  forces,  free,  intelli- 
gent man  compels  them  ''  to  do  his  bidding."  Propose 
to  the  ignorant  savage  to  rend  the  rocky  monntain  cliff 
to  pieces  or  to  send  a  message  across  the  Atlantic  in  a 
few  seconds  of  time,  and  he  might  well  ask:  "  x\m  I 
God,  that  I  should  do  this  thing?"  But  the  skilful 
engineer,  acquainted  with  the  explosive  power  of 
dynamite  and  the  swift  motion  of  electricity,  and  know- 
ing the  laws  which  govern  the  operation  of  these  won- 
derful agents,  can  so  arrange  matters  that  the  desired 
result  shall  be  accomplished  with  very  little  expenditure 
of  force  on  his  part.  It  is  the  glory  of  modern  science 
that  it  has  subjected  material  forces  to  so  great  an  extent 
to  man's  will — in  Huxley's  own  words,  that  it  has  made 
''  the  lightning  the  humble  servant  of  man."  Is  it  not, 
then,  utterly  unscientific  to  exclude  man  from  our  idea 
of  nature,  and  strange  that  any  thoughtful  scientist 
should  consent  to  do  so  ? 

§  YO.   TliG  True  Conception  of  Nature, 

In  his  ''  Reign  of  Law  "  the  Duke  of  Argyll  writes  : 
'^  Does  man,  then,  not  belong  to  nature  ?  Is  he  above 
it,  or  merely  separated  from  it,  or  in  violation  of  it  ?  Is 
he  supernatural  ?  If  so,  has  he  any  difficulty  in  believ- 
ino-  in  himself  ?  Of  course  not.  Self-consciousness  is 
the  one  truth,  in  the  light  of  which  all  other  truths  are 
known,  Cogito,  ergo  stem,  or  Yolo,  ergo  5^^??^— this  is 
the  one  conclusion  which  we  cannot  doubt  unless  Eeason 
disbelieves  herself.  Why,  then,  are  the  faculties  of  the 
human  mind  and  body  not  habitually  included  among 
the  "  laws  of  nature"  ?  Because  a  fallacy  is  getting  hold 
upon  us,  from  a  want  of  definition,  in  the  use  of  terms. 
Nature  is  being  used  in  the  sense  of  physical  nature. 
It  is  conceived  as  containing  nothing  beyond  the  proper- 


192  MATURE   AND    REVELATIOiJ". 

ties  of  matter.  Tims,  the  whole  mental  world  in  which 
we  ourselves  live  and  move  and  have  our  being  is  ex- 
cluded from  it.  But  these  selves  of  ours  do  belong  to 
nature.  At  all  events,  if  we  are  ever  to  understand  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  believing  in  the  supernatural,  we 
must  first  keep  clearly  in  view  what  we  intend  to  under- 
stand as  included  in  the  natural.  Let  us  never  forget, 
then,  that  the  agency  of  man  is,  of  all  others,  the  most 
natural — the  one  with  which  w^e  are  most  familiar — the 
only  one,  in  fact,  we  can  be  said  even  in  any  measure  to 
understand."     ("  Reign  of  Law,"  p.  7.) 

The  city  of  London,  with  its  adjacent  parks  and  culti- 
vated fields,  is  to-day  as  truly  a  part  of  our  cosmos  as 
the  trackless  forest  and  wide  meadow  which  once  occu- 
pied the  site  of  the  modern  city  ;  and  all  that  makes 
up  the  difference  between  the  two — the  magnificent 
cathedrals,  the  splendid  palaces,  the  comfortable  homes, 
the  busy  machine-shops,  the  thronged  mercantile  estab- 
.lishments,  the  capacious  warehouses,  the  carefully  con- 
structed bridges  and  docks,  the  vessels  of  every  class, 
propelled  by  wind  or  steam,  that  move  about  upon  the 
river,  the  loaded  railroad  trains  that  make  their  way 
swiftly  over  the  land,  the  cultivated  field,  laden  with  its 
harvest  of  ripened  grain,  the  garden  blooming  with  flow- 
ers brought  from  distant  lands— these,  and  all  else  that 
mark  the  advanced  civilization  of  the  London  of  to-day, 
are  directly  traceable  to  the  agency  of  intelligent  man, 
putting  forth  a  free  will-power,  in  harmony  with  the  as- 
certained laws  governing  the  operation  of  material 
forces,  and  so,  subjecting  them  to  his  control,  making 
them  to  do  his  pleasure.  Now,  if  all  this  has  been  done 
in  what  we  must  consider  a  perfectly  naticral  way — if  we 
will  give  to  the  term  natural  its  proper  scientific  sense 
— and  without  producing  even  a  jar  in  the  woiking  of 


PROVIDENCE    AND    PRAYER.  193 

this  vast,  law-governed  inacliine  of  the  material  world, 
what  possible  objection  can  be  urged  to  the  belief  in  the 
operation  in  our  cosmos  of  a  free  will-]30wer  mightier 
than  that  of  man,  if  the  phenomena  which  present  them- 
selves for  our  study  call  for  such  a  belief  ?  If  the  activi- 
ties of  man  may  not  be  excluded  from  a  true  conception 
of  nature,  \A\j  should  the  activities  of  a  mighter  than 
man — even  of  God — be  excluded  or  studiously  ignored  ? 
Of  the  origin  of  matter  no  other  rational  account  can 
be  given  than  that  with  which  the  oldest  of  extant  cos- 
mogonies opens  :  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth."  The  extremest  system  of  evo- 
lution postulates  the  existence  of  "  star  dust" — a  vast 
mass  of  nebulous  matter  out  of  which  onr  cosmos  has 
been  developed  ;  and  this,  as  to  its  ultimate  molecules, 
possessed  of  a  wonderful  ''potentiality"  (i.  ^.,  inher- 
ent power  not  actually  exhibited.  Imperial  Dictionary). 
Leaving  out  of  account  all  that  portion  of  this  potentiality 
which  is  the  peculiar  postulate  of  evolution,  and  taking 
account  of  such  characteristics  only  of  these  molecules — 
atoms,  as  modern  science  regards  them — as  have  been 
ascertained  to  exist — e.g:,  their  absolute  indestructibility, 
the  definite,  unchangeable  weight  of  each  several  kind 
of  atoms,  their  peculiar  chemical  aflinities,  in  consequence 
of  which  they  combine  with  each  other  according  to  cer- 
tain fixed  laws,  their  mathematically  exact  forms  or 
axes  of  j)olarity,  causing  them  to  crystallize  with  every 
angle  true  to  measure,  are  we  not  fully  justified  in  say- 
ing, with  Sir  John  Herschel,  that  "  atoms  possess  all  the 
characteristics  of  manufactured  articles"  ?  And  if  manu- 
factured articles,  then  a  manufacturer ;  and  this  manu- 
facturer not  nature,  in  the  sense  of  law-governed  mat- 
ter, for  matter  is  made  up  of  these  very  atoms  ;  not 
man,    for   atoms   existed   long   before   man,   the   latest 


194  MATURE   AND    REVELATIO>T. 

added  element  of  our  cosmos,  came  into  being,  but  God, 
the  eternal,  self -existent  Author  of  all  things.  Here, 
then,  at  the  very  beginning  we  are  confronted  with  the 
proof  of  the  existence  and  working  of  a  free  will-power 
in  many  particulars  similar  to  that  of  man,  but  far 
mighter  than  his. 

If  we  pass  now  from  the  examination  of  atoms  to  that 
of  the  more  comj)lex  structures  of  plants  and  animals 
which  everywhere  surround  us,  we  will  be  more  deeply 
impressed  with  the  idea  that  they  are  all  '^  manufactured 
articles  ;' '  and  this,  whether  we  regard  them  as  the 
products  of  immediate  creation  or  of  an  evolution  which 
is  but  ^'  a  mode  of  creation."  Study  the  structure  and 
growth  of  a  lily,  for  example.  ISTote  its  changes  from 
the  shrivelled,  dark-colored  seed  to  the  living  plant  in 
bloom,  of  which  it  has  been  truly  said  ^^  that  Solomon, 
in  all  his  glory,  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these  ;"  and 
consider  the  fact  that  through  the  intervention  of  the 
simplest  of  mechanisms,  in  so  far  as  we  can  see,  this 
flower  in  all  its  perfection  of  form,  its  beauty  of  color, 
its  inimitable  markings,  and  its  sweet  perfume,  has  been 
made  out  of  the  rotting  remains  of  some  previously 
existing  plant,  with  the  addition  of  a  little  water  and 
air — a  work  which  after  years  of  study  man  cannot 
understand,  much  less  imitate,  and  again  we  find  our- 
selves confronted  with  what  we  must  consider  the  work 
of  God — the  eternal,  self-existent  Author  of  all  things. 

In  the  rudely  chipped  implements  of  the  paleolithic 
age  the  archaeologist  discerns  the  handiwork  of  intelligent 
man,  and  hence  infers  the  existence  and  activity  of  man 
at  the  time  these  implements  were  made  ;  and  no  one 
questions  the  correctness  of  his  inferences.  How,  then, 
can  we  look  upon  atoms,  far  more  curiously  constructed, 
or  the  more  complex  structures  presented  in  plants  and 


PROVIDEI^CE   AND    PRAYER.  195 

animals — even  the  rudimentary  organisms  which  Darwin 
starts  with — and  consistently  question  the  proof  they 
furnish  of  the  existence  and  activity  of  an  intelligent 
agent,  mightier  than  man,  when  they  were  made  ? 

§  Yl.  Providence, 

When  such  a  conclusion  is  reached,  the  question  at 
once  arises.  If  such  was  God's  relation  to  our  cosmos  in 
the  beginning,  what  is  it  to-day  ?  Shall  we  say,  God 
made  the  world,  and  impressed  upon  it  certain  laws,  en- 
dowing matter  with  its  properties,  and  rational  beings 
with  the  power  of  free  agency,  and  having  done  this,  He 
leaves  the  world  to  the  guidance  of  these  general  laws  ; 
that  all  things  come  to  pass  in  virtue  of  the  operation  of 
causes  which  He  created  and  set  in  motion  at  the  begin- 
ning ?  ''  According  to  this  view,  God  in  nowise  deter- 
mines the  effects  of  natural  causes,  nor  controls  the  acts 
of  free  agents.  The  reason  that  one  season  is  propitious, 
and  the  earth  produces  her  fruits  in  abundance,  and  that 
another  is  the  reverse  ;  that  one  year  pestilence  sweeps 
over  the  land,  and  another  year  is  exempt  from  such 
desolation  ;  that  of  two  ships  sailing  from  the  same  port, 
the  one  is  wrecked  and  the  other  has  a  prosperous 
voyage  ;  that  the  Spanish  Armada  was  dispersed  by  a 
storm,  and  Protestant  England  saved  from  Papal  domina- 
tion ;  that  Cromwell  and  his  companions  were  prevented 
from  sailing  for  America,  which  decided  the  fate  of  re- 
ligious liberty  in  Great  Britain — that  all  such  events  are 
as  they  are  must,  according  to  this  theory,  be  referred 
to  chance  or  the  blind  operation  of  natural  causes.  God 
has  nothing  to  do  with  them.  He  has  abandoned  the 
world  to  the  government  of  physical  laws,  and  the  affairs 
of  men  to  their  own  control."  (Hodge's  ^'  Theology," 
vol.  1,  p.  591.) 


196  N^ATURE   AKD   REVELATIOIT. 

This  hypothesis,  while  it  has  not  been  without  ad- 
vocates in  ancient  as  well  as  modern  times,  has  never 
been  accepted  bj  the  vast  majority  of  thoughtful  men. 
A  belief  in  the  continued  providential  government  of 
the  world  by  God,  its  Creator,  is  common  to  all  forms  of 
religion  which  have  obtained  currency  among  men  ;  and 
is  as  pronounced  in  the  inscriptions  of  the  Tigro-Eu- 
phrates  Yalley — which  antiquaries  are  now  deciphering 
after  a  lapse  of  many  centuries — as  in  the  writings  of 
Christian  authors  of  to-day.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  has  said 
truly,  this  belief  ''  is  the  intuitive  conviction  of  all  men, 
however  inconsistent  it  may  be  with  their  philosophical 
theories  or  with  their  professions."  Professor  Huxley 
writes  :  '^  The  lightning  was  the  agent  of  the  Lord,  but 
it  has  pleased  Providence,  in  these  modern  times,  that 
science  should  make  it  the  humble  messenger  of  man." 
Now,  whether  we  regard  this  recognition  of  Providence 
as  governing  the  progress  of  science,  as  the  expression 
of  an  intelligent  and  definite  belief  on  the  part  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  himself,  or  as  merely  a  form  of  expression 
which  he  found  current  among  men,  and  adopted  in 
order  to  make  himself  understood,  it  furnishes  at  once 
an  illustration  and  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  Dr.  Hodge's 
statement  quoted  above. 

No  one  can  study  the  records  of  the  past  and  not  be 
constrained  to  feel  that  there  is  an  order  in  events — a 
philosophy  of  history.  Of  this  Professor  Huxley  evi- 
dently gets  a  glimpse  when  he  writes  :  "  Harmonious 
order  governing  eternally  continuous  progress,  the  web 
and  woof  of  matter  and  force  interweaving  by  slow 
degrees,  without  a  broken  thread,  that  veil  which  lies 
between  us  and  the  Infinite."  The  '^  web  and  woof  of 
matter  interweaving  continuous  progress;"  aye,  and  is 


PROVIDENCE   AND   PRAYER.  197 

there  no  Weaver  ?  Shakespeare  but  gives  expression  to 
the  common  thought  of  man  when  he  writes  : 

"  Let  UR  own, 
Our  indiscretion  sometimes  serves  us  well, 
When  our  deep  plots  do  fail  ;  and  that  should  teach  us, 
There's  a  divinity  that  shapes  our  ends, 
Eough-hew  them  how  we  will." 

And  one  greater  than  Shakespeare  teaches  the  doc- 
trine of  a  Providence,  at  once  general  and  particular,  in 
His  words  :  ' '  Are  not  two  sparrows  sold  for  a  farthing  ? 
and  one  of  them  shall  not  fall  on  the  ground  without 
your  Father.  But  the  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all 
numbered."     (Matt.  10  :  29,  30.) 

§  72.  Professor  TyndalV s  Prayer-Test. 

'^  Prayer  and  the  answer  of  prayer  are  simply  .  .  .  the 
preferring  of  a  request  upon  the  one  side  and  compliance 
with  that  request  upon  the  other.  Man  applies,  God 
complies.  Man  asks  a  favor,  God  bestows  it.  These 
are  conceived  to  be  the  two  terms  of  a  real  interchange 
that  takes  place  between  the  parties — the  two  terms  of  a 
sequence,  in  fact,  whereof  the  antecedent  is  a  prayer 
lifted  up  from  earth,  and  the  consequent  is  the  fulfil- 
ment of  that  prayer  in  virtue  of  a  mandate  from 
heaven."     (Chalmers's  Works,  vol.  2,  p.  321.) 

In  immediate  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  God's 
providence,  the  Scriptures  teach  the  doctrine  of  effectual 
praj^er,  for  which  it  lays  a  proper  foundation.  "  The 
theory  of  the  universe  which  underlies  the  Bible,  which 
is  everywhere  assumed  or  asserted  in  the  sacred  volume, 
which  accords  with  our  moral  and  religious  nature,  and 
which,  therefore,  is  the  foundation  of  natural  as  well 
as  of  revealed  religion,  is  tliat  God  created  all  things  by 
the  word  of  His  power  ;  that  He  endowed  His  creatures 


198  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

with  their  properties  or  forces  ;  that  He  is  everywhere 
present  in  the  universe,  co-operating  with  and  controlling 
the  operation  of  second  causes  on  a  scale  commensurate 
with  His  omnipresence  and  omnipotence,  as  we,  in  our 
measure,  co-operate  with  and  control  them  within  the 
narrow  range  of  our  efficiency.  According  to  this  theory, 
it  is  not  irrational  that  we  should  pray  for  rain  or  fair 
weather,  for  prosperous  voyages  or  healthful  seasons  ; 
or  that  we  should  feel  gratitude  for  the  innumerable 
blessings  which  we  receive  from  this  ever-present,  ever- 
operating,  and  ever-watchful  benefactor  and  Father. 
Any  theory  of  the  universe  which  makes  religion  or 
prayer  irrational  is  self-evidently  false,  because  it  con- 
tradicts the  nature,  the  consciousness,  and  the  irrepressible 
convictions  of  men.  As  this  control  of  God  extends 
over  the  minds  of  men,  it  is  no  less  rational  that  we 
should  pray — as  all  men  instinctively  do  pray — that  He 
would  influence  our  own  hearts  and  the  hearts  of  others 
for  good,  than  that  we  should  pray  for  health." 
(Hodge's  "  Theology,"  vol.  3,  p.  698.)  ' 

In  an  article  published  in  the  Contemporary  Remew 
for  July,  1872,  Professor  Tyndall,  writing  in  the  charac- 
ter of  a  physician,  makes,  in  .substance,  the  following 
proposition — viz.:  "We  will  submit  the  matter  to  the 
test  of  calm  experiment.  Let  the  advocates  of  prayer 
and  ourselves  select  two  wards  of  a  hospital,  each  of 
them  full  of  sick  persons,  and  agree  upon  tlie  following 
conditions  :  Both  wards  shall  receive  the  same  medical 
attention,  the  same  tender  nursing,  the  same  human 
palliatives  of  the  complaints  of  the  sufferers  ;  but  those 
in  one  of  them  shall  have,  in  addition,  the  supposed 
benefit  of  prayer  being  offered  for  their  recovery. 
Those  in  the  other  shall  be  left  without  that  supposed 
benefit.     If  the  former  ward  shall  present  a  larger  num- 


PROVIDENCE   AND    PRAYER.  199 

ber  of  instances  of  restoration  to  health,  or  of  more 
speedy  or  more  complete  restoration  than  the  latter, 
something  will  have  been  done  toward  removing  the  ob- 
jection that  prayer  is  barren  of  results.  At  any  rate, 
inducement  will  then  exist  to  repeat  the  experiment. 
Every  repetition,  if  accompanied  by  a  similar  result,  will 
go  further  toward  the  removal  of  the  objection.  At 
length  it  will  be  removed  entirely,  for  no  doubt  it  will 
be  ultimately  discovered  not  merely  that  prayer  is  avail- 
able, but  how  much  it  is  available  both  generally  and  in 
particular  cases."  (Quoted  from  ''  The  Boyle  Lectures 
for  1873,"  pp.  113,  114.) 

§  73.   TyiidaWs  Test  Practicalhj  Worthless. 

I  cannot  believe  that  Professor  Tyndall,  when  he  pro- 
posed to  test  the  efficacy  of  prayer  in  healing  diseases, 
used  the  word  prayer  in  its  low,  heathen  sense  of  the 
mere  repetition  of  or  form  of  words — an  incantation,  a 
charm.  He  must  have  understood  it  to  be,  at  the  least,  an 
honest  expression  of  the  heart's  desire  of  the  petitioner. 
If  he  did  not,  his  proposition  is  an  evasion  and  not  a  test 
of  the  truth  of  the  Christian's  faith.  No  Christian  be- 
lieves in  the  efficacy  of  an  incantation.  Taking  this  to 
be  his  meaning,  1  remark,  his  test  is  worthless,  and  this 
for  two  reasons — viz, : 

1.  The  men  in  the  ward  of  the  hospital  for  whom  no 
prayer  is  to  be  made,  w^hose  recovery  is  in  no  way  to  be 
influenced  by  prayer,  may  pray  for  themselves  ;  and 
should  they  find  themselves  gradually  growing  worse, 
some  of  them,  undoubtedly,  will  do  so.  In  times  of  dis- 
tress and  danger  most  men  instinctively  turn  to  prayer. 
The  Scriptures  give  us  the  story  of  a  threatened  ship- 
wreck in  the  words:  '' Eut  the  Lord  sent  out  a  great 
wind  into  the  sea,  and  there  w^as  a  mighty  tempest  in  the 


200  NATURE    AXD    REVELATION. 

sea,  so  that  the  ship  was  like  to  be  broken.  Then  the 
mariners  were  afraid,  and  cried  every  man  unto  his  god, 
and  cast  forth  the  wares  in  the  ship  into  the  sea,  to  lighten 
it  of  them.  But  Jonah  was  gone  down  into  the  sides  of 
the  ship  ;  and  he  lay,  and  was  fast  asleep.  So  the  ship- 
master came  to  him,  and  said  unto  him,  What  meanest 
thou,  O  sleeper  ?  arise,  call  upon  thy  God,  if  so  be 
that  God  will  think  upon  us,  that  we  perish  not." 
(Jonah  1  :  4-6.)  The  picture  here  presented  us  w^ill  be 
recognized  by  all  as  true  to  nature.  The  incident  related 
has  been  substantially  repeated  a  thousand  times  in 
every  age  and  upon  every  sea.  Men  who,  in  quiet 
waters  or  in  health,  live  without  prayer  will  call  ear- 
nestly upon  God  in  a  storm  or  in  the  ward  of  an  hos- 
pital w^hen  death  threatens  and  friends  forsake  them. 

2.  Should  the  attempt  to  apply  this  test  be  made,  the 
experiment  in  progress  w^ill  be  either  unknown,  or  it  will 
be  known  to  the  community  at  large.  If  it  be  unknown, 
as  Christians  are  accustomed  to  pray  in  their  public  as- 
semblies and  in  their  closets  also  for  the  sick  and  the 
afflicted,  how  can  we  shut  out  the  influence  of  the  many 
prayers  thus  offered  from  the  ward  of  the  hospital  from 
which  all  influence  of  prayer 'is  to  be  exckided,  if  this 
test  is  to  be  of  any  real  value  in  setthng  the  question  in 
dispute  ?  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  trial  of  the  ex- 
periment was  generally  known,  would  not  this  knowl- 
edge awaken  a  sympathy  on  behalf  of  the  sufferers  in 
the  hearts  of  good  and  kind  men  and  women,  which 
would  lead  them  to  j^ray  with  especial  earnestness  for 
those  w^liom  this  experiment  was  seeking  to  cut  off"  from 
all  influence  of  prayer  ?  If  prayer  l)e,  indeed,  an  efficient 
agent  in  healing  disease — and  the  great  l)ody  of  Chris- 
tian men  and  women  in  the  world  beh'eve  that  it  is — 
then  the  experiment  must,  in  their  estimation,  be  a  very 


PKOVIDENCE    AND    PRAYER.  201 

cruel  one  ;  and  the  knowledge  that  it  was  being  tried 
would  lead  the  whole  praying  community  to  unite  in 
frustrating  the  attempt.  "  The  voice  of  sympathizing 
humanity  would  rise  on  behalf  of  these  sufferers  night 
and  day  :  and  if  special  and  specially  earnest  prayers 
have  any  influence,  the  proposed  design  would  be  signally 
counteracted.  The  ward  which  was  not  to  be  prayed  for 
would  be  in  better  condition  than  the  other.''  In  the 
language  of  science,  in  the  experiment  proposed  there 
would  be  disturbing  forces  at  work  which,  by  no  possi- 
ble means,  could  we  either  exclude  or  control,  and  so 
the  result  of  the  experiment  would  be  worthless  in  so  far 
as  the  determination  of  the  point  in  question  is  concerned. 

§  74.   TyndalVs  Test  Imp7^aetiGahle. 

The  matter  proposed  to  be  tested  is  in  question  be- 
tween scientists  of  Professor  Tyndall's  school  and  Chris- 
tian men  who  believe  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  effect- 
ual prayer.  The  teaching  of  Scripture  respecting  the 
nature  of  the  prayer  which  is  effectual  is  clearly  set  forth 
by  the  Apostle  James  in  terms  making  an  application  of 
it  to  the  very  case  under  consideration.  ''  The  prayer 
of  faith  shall  save  the  sick,  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him 
up.  .  .  .  Pray  one  for  another,  that  ye  may  be  healed. 
The  effectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth 
much."  (James  5  :  15,  16.)  It  is  such  prayer  as  is  here 
described,  and  such  only,  that  must  be  used  in  the  ex- 
periment proposed.  Just  as  Professor  Tyndall  would 
doubtless  insist  that  the  drugs  used  should  all  be  pure 
and  genuine,  so  has  the  Christian  aright  to  insist  that  the 
prayers  used  shall  be  the  prayers  which  he  believes  to  be 
alone  effectual. 

1.  Let  the  reader  notice  here  that  according  to  Script- 
ure it  is  not  the  prayer  of  any  and  every  man  that  will 


20^  NATURE   AND   KEVELATION. 

^^  save  tlie  sick,"  but  the  prayer  of  ''the  righteous 
man  " — righteous  in  the  Gospel  sense  of  the  term,  right- 
eous in  the  sense  in  which  Elijah  was  a  righteous  man, 
whose  effectual  prayer  is  cited  in  the  immediate  context 
as  proof  of  the  doctrine  taught.  In  the  exercise  of  His 
sovereignty  God  may  answer  tiie  prayer  of  any  man, 
and  sometimes,  doubtless,  does  answer  even  the  wicked 
prayers  of  wicked  men ;  but  He  has  bound  Himself  to 
answer  the  prayers  of  righteous.  Christian  men  alone. 

2.  It  is  not  every  prayer  of  the  Christian  man  that 
will  ''  save  the  sick,"  but  ''  the  prayer  of  faith,"  ''  the 
effectual  fervent  prayer, ' '  the  inwrought  prayer,  as  the 
Greek  word,  energoumenos,  is  more  properly  rendered. 
"What  the  Apostle  James  means  by  an  imor ought  prayer 
we  may  learn  from  Rom.  8  ;  26,  27 — "  Likewise  the 
Spirit  helpetli  our  infirmities  :  for  vre  know  not  what  we 
should  pray  for  as  w^e  ought  :  but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh 
intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which  cannot  be 
uttered.  And  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts  knoweth 
what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  maketh  inter- 
cession for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of  God." 
The  prayer  of  Elijah  ''  that  it  might  not  rain,  and  it  rained 
not  on  the  earth  by  the  space  of  three  years  and  six 
months,"  is  cited  by  the  Apostle  James  as  an  instance 
of  such  a  prayer  ;  and  respecting  it  Elijah  himself  says, 
addressing  himself  to  Jehovah  :  "1  have  done  all  these 
things  at  Thy  word."     (1  Kings  18  :  3G.) 

3.  Christians  are,  in  the  Scriptures,  frequently  spoken 
of  as  ''  children  of  God,"  as  in  Rom.  8  :  15,  16—''  For 
ye  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage  again  to  fear, 
but  ye  have  received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we 
cry,  Abba,  Father.  The  Spirit  itself  bearing  witness  with 
our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God  ;"  and  sons 
of   God,  as  in  Gal.  4  :  6 — "  And  because  ye  are  sons, 


PROVIDE]SrCE    AND    PRAYER.  203 

God  hath  sent  for  the  Spirit  of  His  Son  into  yonr  hearts, 
crying  Abba,  Father."  On  the  use  of  the  double  appel- 
lation here,  first  the  Aramaic  Abba  (father)  and  then 
the  Greek  pater  (father),  Dr.  Eadie  remarks  :  "  That  en- 
deared repetition  characterizes  a  true  child,  as  it  clings  to 
the  idea  of  fatherhood,  and  loves  to  dwell  upon  it." 
Adoption  among  men  is  often  a  mere  form  ;  the  adop- 
tion into  the  family  of  God  is  always  a  reality,  the 
adopted  child  always  receiving  '^  the  spirit  of  adoption 
whereby  he  cries  Abba,  Father."  A  Christian,  then,  is 
one  who  has  and  cherishes  a  loving,  trusting,  reverent 
child-spirit  toward  God  his  Father  in  heaven  ;  and  for 
this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  he  will  always  pray,  even 
when  he  most  earnestly  desires  a  particular  thing,  w^ith 
submission  to  God  his  Father's  most  wise  and  holy 
will.  Thus  our  only  perfect  exemplar  prayed  when  in 
Gethsemane  he  cried  :  "  O  my  Father,  if  it  be  possible, 
let  this  cup  pass  from  me  :  nevertheless,  not  as  1  will,  but 
as  thou  wilt."  (Matt.  26  :  39.)  Now  let  the  reader  re- 
mark : 

First.  It  is  a  w^ell-known,  wise,  and  just  principle 
governing  God's  administration  of  His  kingdom  of  grace, 
that  He  w^ill  give  such  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
religion  as  a  whole,  and  of  its  several  fundamental  doc- 
trines in  particular,  as  shall  thoroughly  satisfy  the  ingenu- 
ous inquirer,  but  not  "  signs  from  heaven  "  to  shut  the 
mouths  of  cavillers.  Our  Lord  says  :  '' If  any  man  will 
do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be 
of  God  "  (John  7  :  17) — ^.  ^.,  If  any  many  will  honestly 
set  about  making  all  right  between  God  and  himself,  and 
do  this  with  the  Scriptures  in  his  hands,  and  making 
those  Scriptures  his  guide,  he  shall  know  that  Christianity 
— and  as  a  part  of  that  Christianity  the  doctrine  of 
effectual  prayer — is  from  God.     Thousands  in  every  age 


204  NATURE    A XI)    REVELATION". 

and  country  in  wliich  Christianity  has  been  preached 
have  put  this  matter  to  the  test,  and  as  the  result  have 
learned  to  believe  that  Gospel  with  a  faith  which  death 
itself  could  not  disturb.  This  is  God's  plan  for  securing 
a  certain  result  ;  and,  in  so  far  as  we  can  see,  it  is  about 
the  only  plan  which  will  preserve  for  man  his  free-agency 
in  matters  which  concern  his  salvation  and  the  life  to 
come.  And,  now,  what  does  Professor  Tyndall  propose 
that  a  Christian,  a  loving,  trustful  child  of  God,  shall 
do  ?  That  he  shall  come  to  God  with  the  prayer  that  He 
will  set  aside  this  His  plan,  pursued  for  long  ages  with 
abundant  success,  and  give  ''  a  sign  from  heaven,"  not 
that  those  vv^ho  demand  it  may  be  made  humble  believers 
thereby — for  he  has  no  reason  to  think  that ''  a  sign  from 
heaven"  in  our  day  would  have  any  better  effect  than  the 
signs  given  by  our  Lord  did  on  tlie  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago — but  that  the  mouths  of  cer- 
tain cavillers  may  be  shut.  Can  a  trustful,  reverent 
child  of  God  put  up  such  a  prayer  ?  Can  I  believe  that 
such  a  prayer  will  ever  be  ''  inwrought  "  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  whose  office  it  is  ^' to  assist  the  infirmities"  of 
God's  children  ?     The  test  is  impracticable. 

Second.  What  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  prayer 
wliich  Professor  Tyndall  proposes  that  the  Christian  man 
shall  otfer  ?  The  sick  in  one  ward  are  to  be  prayed  for  ; 
and  on  the  supposition  that  prayer  will  ^'  save  the  sick" 
— and  this  is  the  Christian's  belief — they  will  recover. 
Among  the  sick  in  this  ward  there  may  be  a  Christian 
who,  after  a  life  of  trial  and  sufferinof  sent  of  God  to 
purify  him,  is  now  fitted  for  heaven — one  Vv^ho,  like 
Lazarus,  has  long  been  clothed  in  rags,  and  full  of  sores, 
and  in  his  poverty  laid  at  the  rich  man's  gate  that  he 
might  be  fed  with  the  crumbs  which  fell  from  that  rich 
man's  table,  has  now  suffered  his  appointed  time,  and 


PROVIDEiN'CE   AND    PIIAYER.  205 

the  angels  are  waiting  to  carry  liim  away,  that  he  may 
rest  in  Abraham's  bosom.  The  sick  in  the  other  ward 
are  not  to  be  prayed  for  ;  and  on  the  supposition  that 
prayer  is  effectual,  they  must  die.  Among  these  there 
may  be  one  who  has  long  rejected  the  grace  of  Christ, 
but  in  whose  case,  for  some  reason — possibly  in  answer 
to  the  prayers  of  a  pious  mother — prayers  offered  years 
ago,  while  that  mother  was  yet  on  earth,  God  purposes 
to  grant  another  "  season  for  repentance  ;"  and  if  that 
season  be  granted  he  will  improve  it,  and  so  secure  sal- 
vation. There  is  nothing  improbable  in  these  supposi- 
tions. And  knowing  this  to  be  so,  what  does  Professor 
Tyndall  ask  a  Christian  man  to  do  ?  By  his  prayers  to 
dismiss  the  waiting  angels,  and  remand  Lazarus  to  his  rags 
and  his  sores  again  ;  by  his  j)rayers  to  close  the  gate  of 
heaven  forever  against  a  poor  prodigal  whom  the  Father 
was  waiting  to  welcome  home,  and  open  an  impassable 
gulf  between  a  godly  mother  in  heaven  and  the  son  of  her 
prayers.  No  Christian  could  do  this.  Professor  Tyn- 
dall himself,  with  his  eyes  open  to  all  that  was  involved 
in  the  prayer,  would  not  ask  the  Christian  to  do  it. 
The  test  is  impracticable. 

§  75.   The  Efficacy  of  Prayer  to  he  Tested  hy  Ohserva- 

tion. 

If  in  this  case  experiment  is  worthless,  and  the  test 
which  it  might  furnish  impracticable,  is  there  no  method 
known  to  science  by  which  the  efficacy  of  prayer  can  be 
determined  ?  1  answer,  Yes.  Careful  observation  is 
open  to  our  use. 

In  establishing  the  truths  of  science,  careful  observa- 
tion is  as  often  resorted  to  as  is  experiment,  and  its  re- 
sults as  thoroughly  accepted.  The  accepted  belief  among 
scientists  respecting  the  density  of  the  train  of  a  comet 


206  MATURE   AND    REVELATI02^. 

furnishes  an  example  of  sncli  a  result.  Moving  as  the 
comet  does,  far  away  in  the  heavens,  we  cannot  possess 
ourselves  of  any  portion  of  its  luminous  train  that  we 
may  weigh  it  in  balances.  But  we  can,  and  astronomers 
have,  followed  comets  in  their  movements  through  the 
heavens  ;  have  subjected  them  to  careful  observation. 
And  in  doing  this,  they  have  learned  (1)  that  bright  stars 
can  be  seen  through  the  train  of  a  comet,  and  (2)  some 
years  ago,  when  a  comet  in  its  course  passed  between 
Jupiter  and  his  satellites,  they  found  that  no  sensible 
effect  was  produced  upon  the  motion  of  those  satellites, 
while  the  comet  was  detained  some  weeks  by  their  attrac- 
tion. From  this  they  inferred  that  the  train  of  a  comet 
must  be  exceedingly  rare — rarer,  even,  than  the  light 
clouds  sometimes  seen  floating:  in  the  summer  skv.  And 
this  conclusion  is  considered  as  satisfactorily  established, 
and  by  a  method  as  thoroughly  scientific  as  it  could  be 
by  securing  a  portion  of  a  comet's  train  and  weighing  it 
in  balances. 

Let  us  turn,  then,  to  observation,  and  see  if  in  this 
way  we  can  settle  the  question  respecting  the  efficacy  of 
prayer  in  healing  the  sick.  1  might  here  direct  attention 
to  an  instance  of  prayer  ''  saving  the  sick  "  recorded  in 
the  Bible.  In  2  Kings  20  we  are  told  that  Hezekiah, 
Kincr  of  Judah,  on  a  certain  occasion  ''  was  sick  unto 
death,"  that  "  he  turned  his  face  unto  the  wall,  and 
prayed  unto  the  Lord,  saying,  I  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  re- 
member now  how  I  have  walked  before  Thee  in  truth 
and  with  a  perfect  heart,  and  have  done  that  which  is 
good  in  Thy  sight.  And  Hezekiah  wept  sore.  And  it 
came  to  pass,  afore  Isaiah  was  gone  out  into  the  middle 
court,  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him,  saying. 
Turn  again,  and  tell  Hezekiah  the  captain  of  my  people. 
Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  David  thy  father,  I 


PROVIDENCE    AND    PRATER.  207 

have  heard  thy  prayer,  I  have  seen  thy  tears  :  behold,  I 
Mall  heal  thee  :  on  the  third  day  thou  shalt  go  np  unto 
the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  I  will  add  unto  thy  days 
fifteen  years.'*'  Here  is  an  unmistakable  instance  of 
prayer  ''  saving  the  sick."  But  I  may  be  told  this  was 
a  miracle  ;  and,  as  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  the  age  of 
miracles  is  passed.  To  this  I  answer,  The  answer  to 
Hezekiah's  prayer  was  no  more  a  miracle  than  the  an- 
swer to  Elijah's  prayer  at  Carmel  was  ;  and  the  Apostle 
James  cites  the  efficacy  of  Elijah's  prayer  for  the  en- 
couragement of  Christians  in  every  age  and  country  to 
pray  for  the  healing  of  the  sick. 

To  remove  all  possible  objection  on  any  such  grounds 
as  these,  I  will  ask  the  reader's  attention  to  two  cases 
which  have  occurred  in  our  day,  for  the  truth  of  which  I 
will  myself  vouch.  And  I  select  these  cases,  not  because 
they  are  singular,  but  because  they  are  not  singular. 
Cases  of  substantially  the  same  kind  have,  I  doubt  not, 
come  under  the  observa,tion  of  every  Christian  who  has 
lived  long  in  the  world. 

1.  A  young  man,  son  of  an  honored  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  was  hopefully  converted  when  he  was  about  six- 
teen years  of  age,  and  after  a  season  of  careful  and 
prayerful  consideration  he  gave  himself  up  to  serve  God 
in  the  work  of  the  ministry.  During  his  college  course 
he  ''  lost  his  first  love,"  and  a  worldly  ambition  taking 
possession  of  his  soul,  he  determined  to  turn  to  the  pro- 
fession of  the  law  as  his  life-work.  Shortly  after  com- 
mencing the  study  of  law  he  was  prostrated  by  an  attack 
of  sickness  which  all  his  friends,  and  he  himself,  thought 
must  prove  fatal.  His  sickness  was  of  such  a  kind  as  to 
leave  him  in  the  undisturbed  possession  of  his  powers  of 
thought  and  reasoning.  A  godly  sorrow  for  his  sin  in 
breaking  covenant  with  God  was  awakened  within  him. 


208  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

He  sought,  and,  as  he  believed,  obtained  pardon  for  this 
his  sin.  And  then  his  original  desire  to  serve  God  in 
the  ministry  of  His  word  taking  full  possession  of  his 
soul,  he  prayed  earnestly  that  God  would  restore  him  to 
health,  that  He  might  thus  serve  Him.  Contrary  to  the 
expectation  of  his  physician  and  friends,  he  began  to  re- 
cover from  that  very  hour  ;  and  he  is  to-day,  and  has 
been  for  more  than  twenty  years,  preaching  the  Gospel 
with  great  effect. 

2.  A  Cliristian  father  was  unexpectedly,  suddenly, 
called  to  part  with  a  beloved  child.  She  had  always 
been  a  thoughtful,  though  by  no  means  a  precocious 
child,  and  for  several  reasons  her  father  had  cherished 
the  hope  that  as  her  mind  was  opening  and  her  powers 
developing  they  were  being  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.  He  knew  that  in  addition  to  her  daily  prayers  re- 
peated at  her  mother's  knee  she  had  been  accustomed, 
for  several  months,  to  go  away  by  herself  to  pray  to  God 
in  secret.  Her  disease,  a  form  of  membranous  croup, 
made  such  rapid  progress  that  she  was  dying,  her  senses 
and  power  of  speech  gone,  before  he  thought  of  saying 
anything  to  her  about  death  and  her  trust  in  Jesus.  To 
all  appearance  she  died.  Hgr  mother's  hand  had  closed 
her  eyes,  and  friends  had  left  the  room  to  make  ready 
her  shrouding.  It  was  the  father's  first  experience  of 
parting  w^itli  a  child,  the  first  death  in  the  family,  and 
he  knelt  by  the  bedside  of  his  child  and  prayed  with 
deepest  earnestness  that  God  would  give  him  some  as- 
surance that  in  giving  up  his  loved  one  he  was  giving  her 
into  the  arms  of  Jesus.  While  he  was  yet  praying,  con- 
trary to  the  expectation  of  all  the  child  began  to  breathe 
again,  and  slowly  recovering  her  senses  and  power  of 
speech,  she  put  her  arms  around  her  father's  neck,  and 
drawing  him  down  close  to  her,  said,  as  if  divining  his 


PEOVIDENCE    AND    PRAYER.  209 

thoughts,  "Father,  I  am  dying,"  and  a  sweet  smile 
lighting  up  her  countenance,  she  added,  "  1  am  going 
to  Jesus  ;"  and  then,  slowly  unclasping  her  arms  and 
lying  back  upon  her  pillow,  her  spirit  took  its  flight. 

Such  cases  of  answer  to  prayer  as  the  two  related 
above  are  occurring  from  time  to  time  within  the  knowl- 
edge of  every  Christian  ;  and  in  them  we  have  proof  of 
the  efficacy  of  prayer  hy  ohservation — a  proof  which 
no  scientist  can  reasonably  object  to,  a  proof  wliich,  in 
other  cases.  Professor  Tyndall  himself  would  consider 
just  as  satisfactory  as  any  which  could  be  furnished  by 
experiment. 

§  7G.   Prayer  Instinctive, 

"  "Wherever  there  is  religion,  true  or  false,  there  is 
prayer.  Even  the  speculative  atheist,  when  pressed  by 
danger,  has  been  known  to  belie  his  pretended  creed  by 
calling  in  anguish  upon  the  God  whom  he  denied.  This 
natural  instinct  of  j[)rayer  reposes  for  its  ground  on  God's 
perfections  and  man's  dependence  and  wants.  And  so 
long  as  these  two  facts  remain  what  they  are,  man  must 
be  a  praying  creature.  Emotion  and  the  expression  of 
emotion  are  the  unavoidable  because  natural  outgoings 
of  his  powers.  He  cannot  but  put  forth  his  activity  in 
efforts  tending  to  the  objects  of  his  desires  ;  he  nmst 
cease  first  to  be  man  ;  and  prayer  is  the  inevitable,  the 
natural  effort  of  the  dependent  creature,  in  view  of 
exigencies  above  his  own  powers.  To  tell  him  Tvho  be- 
lieves in  a  God  not  to  pray  is  to  command  him  to  cease 
to  be  a  man."     (Dabney's  "  Theology,"  p.  715.) 

"Among  all  the  moral  instincts  of  man  there  is  no 
one  more  natural,  more  universal,  more  unconquerable 
than  prayer.  To  prayer  the  child  applies  himself  with 
cnsrer  teachableness.     On  prayer  the  aged  man  falls  back 


210  NATURE    AND    REVELATION. 

as  on  a  refuge  against  decay  and  solitariness.  Prayer 
rises  spontaneously  to  young  lips  which  can  scarcely 
lisp  the  name  of  God,  and  to  the  dying  lips  which  have 
no  longer  strength  to  pronounce  that  name.  In  all  peo- 
ples, renowned  or  obscure,  civilized  or  savage,  one  meets 
with  acts  and  set  forms  of  invocation.  Wherever  man 
lives,  under  certain  circumstances,  at  certain  hours, 
under  the  dominion  of  certain  impressions  of  the  soul, 
his  eyes  raise  themselves,  his  hands  seek  each  other,  his 
knees  bow,  to  petition  or  to  give  thanks,  to  adore  or  to 
deprecate.  With  joy  or  with  fear,  openly  or  in  the 
secrecy  of  his  heart,  it  is  to  prayer  that  man  betakes  him- 
self, in  the  last  resort,  to  fill  up  the  void  of  his  soul,  or 
to  bear  the  burdens  of  his  destiny.  It  is  in  prayer  that 
he  seeks,  when  all  is  failing  him,  support  for  his  weak- 
ness, comfoi-t  in  his  afflictions,  encouragement  for  his 
virtue."  (M.  Guizot,  as  quoted  in  the  ^' Boyle  Lect- 
ures for  1873,"  pp.  6Q,  67.) 

''  Grant  God  and  man  (God's  yet  unf alien  creature) 
standing  in  His  presence,  conscious  of  God's  power, 
wisdom,  and  goodness,  and  of  his  own  dependence  upon 
Him,  and  prayer  is  an  intuitive  idea.  It  remains  intuitive 
when  man  stands  before  God^  as  a  fallen  creature,  con- 
scious how  far  he  has  gone  from  original  righteousness, 
though  it  requires  reassuring  under  his  thus  altered  moral 
circumstances.  ...  It  remains  intuitive,  though  it  re- 
quires redirecting,  when  man  has  slighted  the  one  true 
God,  and  addressed  himself  to  other  objects  of  worship, 
whether  instead  of  Him  or  beside  Him.  It  remains  in- 
tuitive when  man  has  asked  amiss  that  he  may  expend 
what  he  obtains  upon  his  lusts,  though  it  requires  formu- 
lating, as  Christ  formulated  it  in  His  rehearsal  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  tirst  to  His  disciples  and  then  to  a  large 
auditory.     It   remains  intuitive,  though,  when  the  ful- 


'  PROVIDENCE    AND    PRAYER.  211 

ness  of  time  was  come,  Christ  was  plainly  set  forth  as 
the  medium  through  whom  it  is  to  be  offered,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  made  known  as  co-operating  with  the 
human  spirit  in  its  utterance.  By  such  revelations  it  is 
subhmed,  indeed,  and  purified,  but  it  is  not  thereby  ren- 
dered less  an  intuitive  effort  on  the  part  of  man.  These 
several  and  successive  later  workings  gave  prayer  a  larger 
scope,  or  reassured  or  extended  it,  or  recalled  it  from 
abnormal  movement,  or  rescued  it  from  ntter  perversion, 
or  showed  man  the  most  appropriate  channel  through 
which  it  should  pass,  and  the  most  effectual  aid  by  whiclj 
his  own  effort  might  be  sustained.  They  did  not  origi- 
nate it.  Man  found  the  faculty  or  tendency  toward  it 
within  him,  and  practised  it  from  the  beginning."  (Dr. 
Hessey's  "  Boyle  Lectures  for  18Y3,^'  pp.  11,  12.) 

I  have  given  the  arguments  for  the  instinctive  nature 
of  prayer  in  the  form  of  lengthened  extracts  from  the 
writings  of  others  rather  than  in  my  own  words  for  two 
reasons  :  (1)  Because  they  are  therein  certainly  as  clearly 
expressed  as  I  could  hope  to  express  them  ;  and  (2)  that 
the  scientific  reader,  who  may  not  be  familiar  with 
modern  Christian  literature,  may  see  that  on  this  point 
leading  Christian  writers  of  different  schools  in  theology 
are  agreed. 

Paley  defines  instinct  as  '^  a  propensity  prio?-  to  experi- 
ence and  independent  of  instruction.'^^  ''  The  nest  of 
the  bird,  the  honeycomb  of  the  bee,  the  w^eb  of  the 
spider,  the  threads  of  the  silkworm,  the  holes  or  houses 
of  the  beaver,  are  all  executed  by  instinct,  and  are  not 
more  perfect  now  than  they  were  long  ages  ago.  In  the 
beginning  of  life  we  do  much  by  instinct  and  little  by 
understanding  ;  and  even  when  arrived  at  maturity 
there  are  innumerable  occasions  on  which,  because  reason 
cannot  guide  us,  we  must  be  guided  by  instinct.     The 


213  NATURE   AND   REVELATION. 

complex  machinery  of  nerves  and  muscles  necessary  to 
swallowing  our  food,  walking,  etc. ,  is  set  agoing  by  in- 
stinct. The  motion  of  our  eyelids,  and  those  sudden 
motions  which  we  make  to  avoid  sudden  danger,  are  all 
instinctive.''     (Imperial  Dictionary,  art.  ^'Instinct.") 

The  Duke  of  Argyll  has  well  said  :  ^^  To  account  for 
instinct  by  experience  " — as  Darwin  has  done — ''  is  noth- 
ing but  an  Irish  bull.  It  denies  the  existence  of  things 
which  are  nevertheless  assumed  in  the  very  terms  of  the 
denial  ;  it  elevates  into  a  cause  that  which  must  in  its 
nature  be  a  consequence,  and  a  consequence,  too,  of  the 
very  cause  which  is  denied.  Congenital  instincts  and 
hereditary  powers  and  pre-established  harmonies  are  the 
origin  of  all  experience,  and  without  them  no  one  step 
in  experience  could  ever  be  gained."  (''  Unity  of  Na- 
ture," p.  94.) 

Instincts,  then,  are  a  part  of  the  original  constitution 
of  man  and  the  lower  animals  ;  they  come  directly  from 
God  our  Creator  ;  and  hence  it  is,  as  scientists  univer- 
sally admit,  instinct,  within  its  proper  sphere,  is  a  safer, 
more  unvarying  guide  than  reason.  We  trust  to  its  guid- 
ance in  all  other  directions  ;  why  should  we  distrust  it 
when  it  would  lead  us  to  God's  mercy-seat  in  prayer  ? 

In  closing  his  discussion  of  instinct,  Paley,  having  re- 
ferred to  the  sacrifice  a  bird  makes  in  sitting  upon  her 
nest  at  the  very  season  when  everything  invites  her 
abroad,  writes  :  ''  I  never  see  a  bird  in  that  situation 
but  I  recognize  an  invisible  hand  detaining  the  contented 
prisoner  from  her  fields  and  groves  for  the  purpose,  as 
the  event  proves,  the  most  worthy  of  the  sacrifice,  tlie 
most  important,  the  most  beneficial."  (Paley's  Works, 
vol.  4,  p.  210.)  Tliat  same  invisible  hand — invisible  to 
the  eye  of  sense  only,  not  to  the  eye  of  faith — it  is  which 
would  lead  man  in  his  helplessness  to  an  Almighty  God, 


PROVIDENCE    AND    PRAYER.  213 

and  in  his  guiltiness  to  God  his  Saviour.  In  his  words, 
"  O  Thou  that  hearest  prayer,  unto  Thee  shall  all  flesh 
come  "  (Ps.  65  :  2),  the  psalmist  gives  utterance  at  once 
to  a  profound  truth  of  philosophy  and  to  a  prophecy.  A 
prayer-hearing  God  is  man's  great  necessity  ;  and  to  a 
prayer-hearing  God,  sooner  or  later,  shall  the  gathering 
of  the  people  be. 


A  NEW  BOOK  BY  JO  SI  AH  ALLEN'S 
WIFE. 

SWEET  CICELY.— A  story  of  the  Josiah  Allen's  Wife's  Series. 
Of  thrilling  Interest.  Over  100  Illustrations,  12mo,  cloth,  $2.00. 
(Ready  Oct.  '85.) 

••  Josiah  AUen's  Wife  "  has  always  been  a  shrewd  observer  of 
human  nature  as  it  reveals  itself  in  the  round  of  homely,  every 
day  life,  and  the  keen  sarcasm  and  adroit  humor  with  which 
she  lays  bear  its  fo.bles,  its  weaknesses  and  its  grotesque  out- 
croppinga  has  rarely,  if  ever,  been  equaled.  The  strong  feature 
of  aU  Miss  HoUey's  humor,  is  its  moral  tone.  The  present 
work  wiU  treat  the  "temperance  sentiment"  in  new  phase- 
that  of  a  semi-humorous  novel. 

SOME  OPINIONS  OF  "  JOSIAH  ALLEN'S  WIFE  "  : 
The  Woman's  Journal.  Boston:  "The  keen  sarcasm,  cheerful 
wit  and  cogent  arguments  of  her  books  have  convinced  thous- 
ands of  the  -folly  of  their  ways.'  for  wit  can  pierce  where 
grave  counsel  fails." 

The  Herald,  New  York:  "  Her  fun  is  not  far-fetched,  but  easy 
and  spontaneous.  She  is  now  witty,  now  pathetic,  yet  ever 
strikingly  original." 

The  Home  Journal.  New  York:  "  She  is  one  of  the  most  origi- 
nal humorists  of  the  day." 

The  New  Era.  Lancaster,  Pa.:  "Undoubtedly  one  of  the 
truest  humorists.  Nothing  short  of  a  cast-iron  man  can  resist 
the  exquisite,  droll  and  contagious  mirth  of  her  writings." 


FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  lo-ia  Dey  Street,  New  York. 


ARCHIBALD  MALMAISON. 

A  New  Novel.     By  Julian  Hawthorne.     i2mo)  paper,  15  cts.; 
cloth,  extra  paper,  75  cts. 

INDEPENDENT,  N.  Y.  "  Mr.  Julian  Hawthorne  can  choose  no 
better  compliment  upon  his  new  romance,  '  Archibald  Malmai- 
SON,'  than  the  assurance  that  he  has  at  last  put  forth  astory  which 
reads  as  if  the  manuscript,  written  in  his  father's  indecipherable 
handwriting  and  signed  '  Nathaniel  Hawthorne,'  had  lain  shut  into 
a  desk  for  twenty-five  years,  to  be  only  just  now  pulled  out  and 
printed.  It  is  a  masterful  romance  ;  short,  compressed,  terribly 
dramatic  in  its  important  situations,  based  upon  a  psychologic 
idea  as  weird  and  susceptible  of  startling  treatment  as  possible. 
It  is  a  book  to  be  read  through  in  two  hours,  but  to  dwell  in  the 
memory  forever.  The  employment  of  the  central  theme  and  the 
literary  conduct  of  the  plot  is  nearly  beyond  criticism." 

Ji.  H.  STODDARD,  IN  NEW  YORK  MAIL  AND  EXPRESS. 
"  ihe  climax  is  so  terrible,  as  the  London  Times  has  pointed  out, 
and  so  dramatic  in  its  intensity,  that  it  is  impossible  to  class  it 
with  any  situation  of  modem  fiction.  .  .  Mr.  Hawthorne  is 
clearly  and  easily  the  first  of  living  romancers." 

THE  LONDON  TIMES.  "  After  perusal  of  this  weird,  fantastic 
tale  (Archibald  Malmaison),  it  must  be  admitted  that  upon  the 
shoulders  of  Julian  Hawthorne  has  descended  in  no  small  degree 
the  mantle  of  his  more  illustrious  father.  The  climax  is  so  terrible, 
and  so  dramatic  in  its  intensity,  that  it  is  impossible  to  class  it 
with  any  situation  of  modern  fiction.  There  is  much  psychologi- 
cal ingenuity  shown  in  some  of  the  more  subtle  touches  that  lend 
an  air  of  reality  to  this  wild  romance." 

THE  LONDON  GLOBE.  "  '  Archibald  Malmaison  '  is  one  of  the 
most  daring  attempts  to  set  the  wildest  fancy  masquerading  in  the 
cloak  of  science,  which  has  ever,  pixhaps  been  made.  Mr.  Haw- 
thorne has  managed  to  combine  the  almost  perfect  construction  of 
a  typical  French  novelist,  with  a  more  than  typically  German 
power  of  conception." 

THE  ACADEMY.  •'  Mr.  Hawthorne  has  a  more  powerful  imagin- 
ation than  any  contemporary  writer  of  fiction.  He  has  the  very 
uncommon  gift  of  taking  hold  of  the  reader's  attention  at  once, 
and  the  still  more  uncommon  gift  of  maintaining  his  grasp  when  it 
is  fixed." 

FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  Publishers,  10  &  12  Dey  St.,  N.  Y. 


THE  FORTUNES  OF  RACHEL. 

A  New  Novel.    By  Edward  Everett  Hale.    i2mo,  paper,  25c.; 
cloth,  $1. 

CHRISTIAN  UNION,  N.  Y.  "  Probably  no  American  has  a  more 
devoted  constituency  of  readers  than  Mr.  Edward  Everett  Hale, 
and  to  all  these  his  latest  story,  '  1  he  Fortunes  of  Rachel,'  will 
bring  genume  pleasure.  Mr.  Hale  is  emphatically  a  natural 
writer;  he  loves  to  interpret  common  things  and  to  deal  with  aver- 
age persons.  He  does  this  with  such  insight,  with  such  noble 
conception  of  life  and  of  his  work,  that  he  discovers  that  profound 
interest  which  belongs  to  the  humblest  as  truly  as  to  the  most 
brilliant  forms  of  life.  .  .  •  This  story  is  a  thoroughly  Ameri- 
can novel,  full  of  incident,  rich  in  strong  traits  of  character,  and 
full  of  stimulating  thought;  it  is  wholesome  and  elevating." 

BOSTON  JOURNAL.  "  The  virtue  of  the  book  is  the  healthful, 
encouraging,  kindly  spirit  which  prevades  it,  and  which  will  help 
one  to  battle  with  adverse  circumstances,  as  indeed,  all  Mr.  Hale's 
stories  have  helped." 

NEIV  YORK  JOURNAL  OF  COMMERCE.  "A  purely 
American  story,  original  all  through,  and  Rachel  is  one  of  the 
pleasantest  and  most  satisfactory  of  heroines.  She  is  a  girl  of  the 
soil,  unspoiled  by  foreign  travels  and  conventionalites.  After 
surt'eiting  on  romances  whose  scenes  are  laid  abroad,  it  is  delight- 
iul  to  come  across  a  healthy  home  product  like  this." 

RUTHERFORD. 

A  New  Novel.     By  Edgar  Fawcett.    Author  cf  An  Ambitious 

Woman"  "A  Gentleman  of  Leisure,"  A  Hopeless  Case," 

"  Tinkling  Cymbals,"  etc.     i2mo,  paper,  25  cts; 

cloth,  extra  paper,  $1.00. 

BOSTON  GLOBE.  "  Truly  Mr.  Fawcett  has  here  wrought  with 
skill  in  producing  some  original  and  beautiful  characters.  '1  he 
motive  and  plan  are  those  of  a  better  book  than  he  has  ever  writ- 
ten. .  .  Rutherford  is  powerful  and  will  contribute  much  to 
the  reputation  of  its  clever  author." 

SAT.  EVENING  GAZETTE,  Boston.  "This  story  evinces  grace 
as  well  as  facility  of  style,  is  eflfectively  told  throughout,  and  m 
its  plot  and  characters,  is  decidedly  interesting.  The  sympathies 
of  the  reader  are  keenly  enlisted  for  two  of  the  characters  who  have 
been  reduced  from  v/ealthto  poverty,  and  the  relation  of  their  ex- 
periences in  the  latter  form  of  life  aflFords  opportunity  for  a  very 
efiFective  exhibition  of  this  phase  of  New  York  experience.  J  he 
book  is  one  of  the  most  elaborate  of  Mr.  Fawcctt's  novels.  ' 

NEW  YORK  TRIBUNE.  "  Mr.  Fawcett's  story.  '  Rutherford,' 
is  more  serious  in  plan  than  most  of  his  society  novels;  it  has  a 
motive  which  is  not  only  tragical,  but  impressive.  .  .  .  It  is 
well  constructed,  and  contains  some  excellent  sketches  of  fashion- 
able life  and  touches  of  satire." 

FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  Publishers,  10  &  12  Dey  St.,  N.  Y. 


CHURCH  FAIRS ;  ARE   THEY  RIGHT? 

GIVING   OR   ENTERTAINMENT,  WHICH?    A  clear,  con- 
cise discussion  on  Churcii  Entertainments  in  contrast  to 
Giving.    By  Joseph  S.  Van  Dyke,  D.D.  12mo,  32  pp.,  paper, 
25  cts. 
The  Christian  Intelligencer,  New  York;    "  This  book  takes  a 
strong  position  against  modern  methods  of  raising  money  in 
churches.    It  is  a  clear,  plain,  pungent  protest  against  fairs 
and  other  entertainments  for  this  purpose.  The  author's  argu- 
ments are  sound  and  unanswerable." 


DANCING;   IS  IT  HURTFUL? 

THE  DANCE  OP  MODERN  SOCIETY.    By  William  Cleaver 
Wilkinson.    12mo,  78  pp.,  cloth,  60  cts. 

Partial  Contents. 


Its    Bearing    Upon    the 

Health. 
Its  Social  Tendency, 


Its  Influence  upon  Intellectual 

Improvement. 
Its  Moral  and  Religious  Aspects. 


Harper's  Magazine  :  "  The  most  pungent  attack  on  the  mod- 
ern dance  we  have  ever  read." 

Theodore L.  Cuyler,  D.D.:  "A  most  pungent  and  powerful 
little  book." 


TM^O  BOOKS  ON  LABOR  AND  CAPITAL. 

WORKING     PEOPLE    AND    THEIR     EMPLOYERS.      By 

Washington  Gladden.    12mo,  paper,  25 cts.;  cloth,  $1.00. 

The  Examiner,  New  York:  "This  book  we  cordially  com- 
mend. It  is  sound  and  economic  in  principal  and  Christian  in 
spirit." 

PROPERTY  IN  LAND.  A  Passage  at  Arms  between  the  Duke 
of  Argyll  and  Henry  George.  12mo,  77  pp.,  paper,  15  cts. 
The  American- Scottish  Journal,  New  York  :  "Both  sides  of  the 
question  are  argued  with  great  skill,  and  in  the  processes  of 
reasoning  employed  throughout  the  reader  will  discover  much 
to  assist  him  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion  on  this  question." 


FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  lo-ia  Dey  St.,  New  York. 


A  NEW  BOOK  ON  FANCY  WORK. 

SKILFUL  SUSY.      A  Hand-book  of  Fancy  Work  for  Fairs, 

Bazaars,  and  the  Home.  By  Elinor  Gay.  12mo.  illustrated, 

paper  covers,  50  cts. 

Articles  are  suggested   and   careful   directions   given   for 

making  them.  As  far  as  practicable,  the  prices  of  the  materials 

used  are  given.    The  chapter  on  framing  pictures  will  prove 

both  novel  and  suggestive.    Particular  attention  is  caUed  to 

SkUful  Susy's  coUection  of  mottoes  for  decorative  work. 

The  Table  of  Contents. 
Preface  Paints,  and  How  to  Use  Them. 

Materials.  The  Dining  Room. 

Embroidery  Materials.  Screens. 

'<  Stitches.  Woodwork. 

Drawn  Work.  Fancy  Chains. 

Kibbon.  Framing  Pictures. 

Dpsiens  Bags  and  Pillows. 

Color     '  Something  for  Everybody. 

Suggestions.  Mottoes  tor  Tea  and  Tray  Cloths. 

Household  Draperies. 


PRACTICAL  PHYSIOLOGY  FOR   GIRLS. 

WHAT  OUR  GIRLS  OUGHT  TO  KNOW.  By  Mary  J.  Stud- 
ley,  M.D.,  State  Normal  School,  Framingham,  Mass. 
12mo,  cloth,  $1.00. 

Contents. 
A  Sunny  House.  The  Mate  and  the  Home.  | 

Best  Hoiirs  for  Sleep.  Nerves  and  Nervousness. 

Brain  and  Nerves.  The  Use  of  Sewing  Machines. 

Carlyle  on  Clothes.  Self-Development. 

Causes  of  Disease.  Time  to  Marry. 

Cleanliness.  How  to  Cook. 

Clothing  the  Feet.  ^M  ^°  ^^*- o  -.^  t:^    * 

Close-fitting  Undergar-         What  Causes  Cold  Feet. 

ments  What  Causes  Varicose  Veins. 

Hygiene'of  the  Skin.  What  Causes  Palpitation. 

The  JForW,  New  York:  '« These  essays  are  written  in  a  clear 
and  chaste  style,  and  the  book  is  one  which  every  sensible 
mother  will  wish  to  place  in  her  daughter's  hands." 

FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  lO-ia  Dey  St.,  New  York. 


BIRD'S-EYE  VIEW  OF  ALL  HISTORY. 

LUDLOW S  CONCENTRIC  CHART  OF  HISTORY,  giving  at 
a  Glance  tlie  Separate  and  Contemporaneous  History  of 
each  Century,  Ancient  and  Modern.    Invented  and  pat- 
ented  by  James   M.   Ludlow,  D.D.    Price  $2.00. 
Separate  and  Contemporaneous  History  of: 
United  States.        Netherlands.        The  Church. 
England.  Russia.  Modern  Painters. 

Scotland  Turkey.  Sculptors. 

Ireland.  Greece.  Architects. 

France.  India.  Literary  Characters. 

Germany.  Norway.  The  Popes. 

Spain.  JEgypt.  Roman  Republic. 

Italy.  Lydia.  Roman  Empire. 

Sweden.  Phoenicia.  Ancient  Art. 

Denmark.  The  Jews.  Ancient  Literature. 

The  device  consists  of  nineteen  fan-shaped  pieces  of  stout 
card-board,  ten  inches  long  and  seven  inches  wide  at  the  top, 
fastened  upon  a  common  centre.  Each  of  these  segments  rep- 
resents one  country  or  subject  (literary,  etc.),  and  is  divided  by 
circles,  nineteen  in  number,  having  their  centre  at  the  base  of 
the  fan.  Between  these  circles  is  given,  together  with  the 
date,  the  important  event9  of  each  century.  By  opening  two 
or  more  segments  the  contemporaneous  events  of  the  respect- 
ive countries  can  be  seen  by  the  century  circles.  The  device 
is  an  important  aid  in  comparing  and  remembering  historical 
events. 

R.S.  Storrs.D.D.  :  "Admirable in  design,  skillful  in  execu- 
tion, accurate  in  detail." 

David  Cochran,  LL.D.,  Pres,  Polytechnic  Institute,  Brooklyn: 
"  A  very  ingenious  and  valuable  device  for  bringing  historical 
events  together  in  their  proper  relations  of  time  and  of  cause 
and  effect." 

Jtsse  B.  Thomas,  D.D.  :  "  It  holds  an  ocean  of  fact  in  a  thim- 
bl^jful  of  space." 


FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  lo-ia  Dey  St.,  New  York. 


LIBRARY  OF  RELIGIOUS  POETRY. 

A  COLLECTION  OF  THE  BEST  POEMS  OF  ALL  AGES 
AND  TONGUES.  Edited  by  PhUlip  Schaff;  D.D.,  LL.D., 
an<f  Arthul* Gilman,  M.  A.  New  Edition.  Superbly  bound. 
Royal  8vo,  1,004  pp.,  cloth,  $6.00. 

FuU  Page  Steel  Engravings, 


John  Milton. 
Robert  Southey. 
J.  G.  Whittier. 
Henry  W.  Longfellow. 
Heni*y  Kirk  White. 
William  Shakespeare. 


William  Cowper. 

Edmund  Spencer. 

Isaac  Watts. 

William  Gullen  Bryant. 

Dante. 

Alfred  Tennyson. 


John  Hall,  D.D. :  "Itisjast,  discriminating  and  impartial 
in  its  selefctions.  Nowhere  else  can  one  find  in  a  volume  so 
much  varied  wealth  of  devout  sentiment  and  imagery,  with 
enough  of  the  personal  in  brief  biographical  notes  and  good 
portraits,  to  aid  the  memory  and  imagination." 

J.  G.  Whittier :  "  Thoroughness,  good  taste  and  sound  judg- 
ment are  manifest  on  every  page." 

Noah  Porter,  Pres.  Tale  College  :  "  In  the  variety  and  good 
judgment  and  excellence  of  its  selections,  it  must  prove  a 
house  treasure  to  any  family." 

Mark  Hopkins,  D.D.,  LL.D. :  "The  selections  are  ample  and 
judicious,  and  the  arrangement  is  admirable.  I  know  of  noth- 
ing like  it  in  the  English  language." 

Prof.  Moses  Coit  Tyler,  Univ.  of  Wisconsin  :  "I  have  enjoyed 
this  work.  I  am  instantly  Impressed  by  the  catholicity  as 
well  as  the  delica.cy  of  its  principles  of  selection." 

Thomas  R,  Pynchon,  D.D..  ex-Pres.  Trinity  College  ;  "It  is  ab- 
solutely essential  to  every  scholar,  and  cannot  but  have  a  most 
powerful  influence  in  cultivating  the  taste  and  purifying  the 
imagination." 

FUNK  &   WAGNALLS,  io-i2  Dey  St.,  New  York. 


ASTRONOMY  WITHOUT  A    TEACHER. 

THE  STARS  AND  CONSTELLATIONS.  A  new  method  by 
which  all  the  more  conspicuous  stars,  constellations  and 
other  objacts  of  interest  in  the  heavens  that  are  visible  to 
the  naked  eye  can  be  easily  and  certainly  identified  with- 
out Instruments,  Globes  or  Maps.  By  Royal  Hill.  Super- 
royal  fine  paper,  4to,  with  2  charts  and  14  cuts.  Price  $1.00, 

Prof.  C.  A.  Young,  rrinceton,  N.  J. :  "  An  excellent  introduc- 
tion to  the  study  of  the  stars,  containing  in  small  compass  all 
that  is  needed  to  identify  easily  aU  the  leading  stars  and  con- 
stellations." 

Prof.  S.  Newcomb,  Nautical  Almanac  Office,  Washington,  D.  C: 
"Please  accept  my  thanks  for  the  instructive  book,  entitled : 
'  The  Stars  and  Constellations.'  " 

Prof.  S.  P.  Langley,  Director  of  the  Allegheny  Observatory,  Alle- 
gheny, Pa. :  '•!  have  examined  '  The  Stars  and  Constellations,' 
and  think  its  scheme  a  very  good  one.  I  know  of  no  chart 
better  calculated  to  teach  the  young  observer  the  names  and 
places  of  the  principal  stars.    I  heartily  recommend  it." 

Alfred  G.  Compton,  Prof.  Applied  Mathematics  College  of  City  of 
New  York :  •'  I  have  examined  with  pleasure  '  The  Stars  and 
Constellations,' and  Hike  it  very  much.  It  should  certaiiily 
be  very  useful  in  making  a  student  acquainted  with  the  prin- 
cipal objects  in  the  heavens,  which  then  become  centres 
around  which  he  can  easily  learn*to  group  the  details." 

J.  K.  Rees,  Director  Columbia  College  Observatory:  "The 
'  Stars  and  Constellations  '  pleases  me  very  much  because  it  is 
a  successful  attempt  to  interest  the  young  in  finding  the  prin- 
cipal stars  and  constellations.  I  think  it  can  be  very  useful 
for  beginners  in  the  study  of  the  heavens." 


FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  lo-ia  Dey  St.,  New  York. 


VALUABLE  BOOKS, 


THE  ORATIONS  OF  DEMOSTHENES.    Paper,  40  cents. 

DRILL  BOOK  IN  VOCAL   CULTURE  AND  GESTURE.    By 
Rev.  E.  P.  Thwing,  Ph.  D.,  paper,  25  cents. 

Contents. 


Importance  of  Vocal  Culture. 
Method  of  Vocal  Culture. 
Physical  Training. 
Production  of  Tone. 
Articultation. 
Stress.  Emphasis. 


Inflection,  Pitch,  Force. 
Melody,  Rate  of  Movement. 
Personification- 
Gesture. 

Extemporaneous  Speech. 
Facial  Expression. 


HANDBOOK  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS.  By  Rev.  E.  P.  Thwing 
Ph.  D.    In  three  volumes.    Paper,  each  25  cents. 

TRAPS  FOR  THE  YOUNG.    By  Anthony  Comstock,  cloth,  $1. 

WORKING  PEOPLE  AND  THEIR  EMPLOYERS.  By  Wash- 
ington Gladden.    Paper,  25  cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

BIBLICAL  LIGHTS  AND  SIDE  LIGHTS;  or.  Ten  Thousand 
Biblical  Illustrations,  with  Thirty  Thousand  Cross  References. 
By  Rev.  Charles  E.  Little.    Cloth,  $4.00. 

GEMS  OF  ILLUSTRATION.  By  Rev.  Thomas  Guthrie.  Cloth, 
$1.25. 

THE  SABBATH  FOR  MAN.  By  Rev.  W.  F.  Crafts.  Cloth,  $1.60. 

THE  LEADERSHIP  OF  EDUCATED  MEN.  By  George  W 
Curtis.    (Bound  with  Homiletic  Review.)    25  cents. 

MANLINESS  IN  THE  SCHOLAR.  Oration  by  R.  S.  Storrs, 
D.D.     {Bound  with  Homiletic  Review.)    25  cents. 


FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  lo-ia  Dey  St.,  New  York. 


THE  HOYT-WARD  CYCLOPEDIA  OF  PRAC- 
TICAL QUOTATIONS. 

Prose  and  Poetry.    Nearly  20,000  Quotations  and  50,000  lines  of 
Concordance. 

It  contains  the  celebrated  quotations  and  all  the  useful  Proverbs 
and  Mottoes  from  the  English,  Latin,  French,  German,  Italian, 
Spanish  and  Portuguese,  classified  according  to  subjects.  Latin 
Law  Terms  and  Phrases,  Legal  Maxims,  etc.  (all  with  translations). 

It  has  a  vast  concordance  of  nearly  50,000  lines,  by  which  any 
quotation  of  note  may  at  once  be  found  and  traced  to  its  source.  It 
is  to  quotations  what  Young's  or  Cruden's  Concordance  is  to  the 
Bible. 

Its  Table  of  Contents:  Index  of  Authors,  giving  date  of  birth, 
nativity,  etc.;  Topical  Index  with  Cross  References,  Index  of  Sub. 
jects.  Index  of  Translation,  together  with  its  immense  Concordance 
and  many  other  features  desirable  in  a  work  of  reference,  combine 
to  make  this  Cyclopaedia  what  it  is, 

THE  ONLY  STANDARD  BOOK  OF  QUOTATIONS. 

Invaluable  to  the  Statesman,  Lawyer  Editor,  Public  Speaker, 
Teacher  or  General  Reader. 


NOAH  PORTER,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Pres.  Yale  College..     "It  will 
be  a  help  and  a  pleasure  to  many." 

HON.  SAMUEL    J.   RANDALL,    WASHINGTON.     "The 
best  book  of  quotations  which  I  have  seen." 

GEO.  F.  EDMUNDS,  U.  S.  SENATOR.^  "  It  is  the  most  com- 
plete and  best  work  of  the  kind  w:th  which  I  am  acquainted." 

HON.  ABRAM  S.  HEWITT.    "  The  completeness  of  its  indices 
is  simply  astonishing." 

HON.  F.  T.  FRELINGHUYSEN,  Secretary  of  State.     "Am 
much  pl-eased  with  the  Cyclopaedia  of  Quotations." 

HENRY  WARD  BEECHER.  '  "Good  all  the  way  through, 
especially  the  proverbs  of  all  nations." 

HENRY  W.  LONGFELLOW.^  "  Can  hardly  fail  to  be  a  very 
successful  and  favorite  volume." 

WENDELL  PHILLIPS.    "Its  variety   and  fullness    and  the 
completeness  of  its  index  gives  it  rare  value  to  the  scholar." 

Royal  octavo,  over  900  pp.  Cloth,  $5.00;  Sheep,  $6.50:  Fancy 
Cloth,  Extra  Gilt,  $7.50;  Half  Morocco,  Gilt,  $8.00;  Full  Morocco, 
Extra  Finish  and  Gilt,  $10.00. 

FUNK  &  WAGNALLS,  Publishers,  10  &  la  Dey  St.,  N.  Y. 


'!«« 
.^- 


— 


W^M 

